LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 
PRINCETON,  N.J. 

'^ 

Purchased  by  the 
Mary  Cheves  Dulles  Fund 

Ccyy  I 


UNDER  THE   EDITORSHIP   OF 

The  Rev.   CHARLES  AUGUSTUS    BRIGGS,  D.D.,  D.LlTT., 

Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopcedia  and  Symbolics, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York ; 


The  Rev.  SAMUEL  ROLLES  DRIVER,  D.D.,  D.LlTT., 

Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford; 

The  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUMMER,  M.A.,  D.D., 

S«m*titHe  Master  of  Univirsity  College,  Durham. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 

Rev.  W.  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

AND 

Rev.  a.  C.  HEADLAM,  B,D. 


The  international  Critical  Commentary 

^N  OF  mnc^ 

o-o  -    1     1903 


A 


CRITICAL  AND  EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMAN? 


BY  THE 

Rev.  WILLIAM  SANDAY,  D.D.,  LLJ3. 

LADY  MARGARET  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY,  AND 
CANON  OF  CHRIST  CHURCH,  OXFORD 

AND  THE 

Rev.  ARTHUR  C.  HEADLAM,  B..D 

FELLOW  OF  ALL  SOULS  COLLEGE,  OXFORD 


\T 


^  h 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  Americ; 

All  rights  reserved.  No  part  of  this  book 
may  be  reproduced  in  any  form  without 
the  permission  of  Charles  Scribner's  Sons 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION 


We  are  indebted  to  the  keen  sight  and  disinterested  care 
of  friends  for  many  small  corrections.  We  desire  to  thank 
especially  Professor  Lock,  Mr.  C.  H.  Turner,  the  Revs.  F. 
E.  Brightman,  and  R.  B.  Rackham.  We  have  also,  where 
necessary,  inserted  references  to  the  edition  of  4  Ezra,  by 
the  late  Mr.  Bensly,  published  in  Texts  and  Studies,  iii.  2. 
No  more  extensive  recasting  of  the  Commentary  has  been 
attempted. 

W.  S. 
A.  C.  H. 

Oxford,  Lent,,  1896. 


PREFACE 


The  commentaries  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
w^hich  already  exist  in  English,  unlike  those  on  some  other 
Books  of  the  New  Testament,  are  so  good  and  so  varied 
that  to  add  to  their  number  may  well  seem  superfluous. 
Fortunately  for  the  present  editors  the  responsibility  for 
attempting  this  does  not  rest  with  thenL  In  a  series  of 
commentaries  on  the  New  Testament  it  was  impossible 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  should  not  be  included 
and  should  not  hold  a  prominent  place.  There  are  few 
books  which  it  is  more  difficult  to  exhaust  and  few  in 
regard  to  which  there  is  more  to  be  gained  from  renewed 
interpretation  by  different  minds  working  under  different 
conditions.  If  it  is  a  historical  fact  that  the  spiritual 
revivals  of  Christendom  have  been  usually  associated  with 
closer  study  of  the  Bible,  this  would  be  true  in  an  eminent 
degree  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  editors  are 
under  no  illusion  as  to  the  value  of  their  own  special  con- 
tribution, and  they  will  be  well  content  that  it  should  find 
its  proper  level  and  be  assimilated  or  left  behind  as  it 
deserves. 

Perhaps  the  nearest  approach  to  anything  at  all  dis- 
tinctive in  the  present  edition  would  be  (i)  the  distribution 
of  the  subject-matter  of  the  commentary,  (2)  the  attempt 
to  furnish  an  interpretation  of  the  Epistle  which  might  be 
described  as  historical. 

Some  experience  in  teaching  has  shown  that  if  a  difficult 


Vi  r&BFACI 

Epistle  like  the  Romans  b  really  to  be  understood  and 
grasped  at  once  as  a  whole  and  in  its  parts,  the  argumspi 
should  be  presented  in  several  different  ways  and  on  several 
different  scales  at  the  same  time.  And  it  is  an  advantage 
when  the  matter  of  a  commentary  can  be  so  broken  up  that 
by  means  of  headlines,  headings  to  sections,  summaries, 
paraphrases,  and  large  and  small  print  notes,  the  reader 
may  not  either  lose  the  main  thread  of  the  argument  In  the 
crowd  of  details,  or  slur  over  details  in  seeking  to  obtain 
a  general  idea.  While  we  are  upon  this  subject,  we  may 
explain  that  the  principle  which  has  guided  the  choice  of 
large  and  small  print  for  the  notes  and  longer  discussions 
is  not  exactly  that  of  greater  or  less  importance,  but  rather 
that  of  greater  or  less  directness  of  bearing  upon  the 
exegesis  of  the  text.  This  principle  may  not  be  carried 
out  with  perfect  uniformity :  it  was  an  experiment  the 
effect  of  which  could  not  always  be  judged  until  the 
commentary  was  in  print ;  but  when  once  the  type  was 
set  the  possibility  of  improvement  was  hardly  worth  the 
trouble  and  expense  of  resetting. 

The  other  main  object  at  which  we  have  aimed  is  th?|l 
of  making  our  exposition  of  the  Epistle  historical,  that  & 
of  assigning  to  it  its  true  position  in  place  and  iime — on 
the  one  hand  in  relation  to  contemporary  Jewish  thought, 
and  on  the  other  hand  in  relation  to  the  growing  body  of 
Christian  teaching.  We  have  endeavoured  always  to  bear 
in  mind  not  only  the  Jewish  education  and  training  of  the 
writer,  which  must  clearly  have  given  him  the  framework 
of  thought  and  language  in  which  his  ideas  are  cast,  but 
also  the  position  of  the  Epistle  in  Christian  literature.  It 
was  written  when  a  large  part  of  the  phraseology  of  the 
newly  created  body  was  still  fluid,  when  a  number  of  words 
had  not  yet  come  to  have  a  fixed  meaning,  when  their 
origin  and  associations — to  us  obscure — were  still  fresh 
and  vivid.  The  problem  which  a  commentator  ought  to 
propose  to  himself  in  the  first  instance  Is  not  what  answer 


PREFACE  Vll 

does  the  Epistle  give  to  questions  which  are  occupying 
men's  minds  now,  or  which  have  occupied  them  in  any 
past  period  of  Church  history,  but  what  were  the  questions 
of  the  time  at  which  the  Epistle  was  written  and  what 
meaning  did  his  words  and  thoughts  convey  to  the  writer 
himself 

It  is  in  the  pursuit  of  this  original  meaning  that  we  have 
drawn  illustrations  somewhat  freely  from  Jewish  writings, 
both  from  the  Apocryphal  literature  which  is  mainly  the 
product  of  the  period  between  loo  B.c  and  loo  A.D.,  and 
(although  less  fully)  from  later  Jewish  literature.  In  the 
former  direction  we  have  been  much  assisted  by  the 
attention  which  has  been  bestowed  in  recent  years  on 
these  writings,  particularly  by  the  excellent  editions  of  the 
Psalms  of  Solomon  and  of  the  Book  of  Enoch.  It  is  by 
a  continuous  and  careful  study  of  such  works  that  any 
advance  in  the  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament  will  be 
possible.  For  the  later  Jewish  literature  and  the  teaching 
of  the  Rabbis  we  have  found  ourselves  in  a  position  of 
greater  difficulty.  A  first-hand  acquaintance  with  this 
literature  we  do  not  possess,  nor  would  it  be  easy  for  most 
students  of  the  New  Testament  to  acquire  it.  Moreover 
complete  agreement  among  the  specialists  on  the  subject 
does  not  as  yet  exist,  and  a  perfectly  trustworthy  standard 
of  criticism  seems  to  be  wanting.  We  cannot  therefore  feel 
altogether  confident  of  our  ground.  At  the  same  time  we 
have  used  such  material  as  was  at  our  disposal,  and  cer- 
tainly to  ourselves  it  has  been  of  great  assistance,  partly  as 
suggesting  the  common  origin  of  systems  of  thought  which 
have  developed  very  differently,  partly  by  the  striking 
contrasts  which  it  has  afforded  to  Christian  teaching. 

Our  object  is  historical  and  not  dogmatic  Dogmatics 
arc  indeed  excluded  by  the  plan  of  this  series  of  commen- 
taries, but  they  are  excluded  also  by  the  conception  which 
we  have  formed  for  ourselves  of  our  duty  as  commentators. 
We  have  sought  before  all  things  to  understand  St.  Paul, 


viii  PREFACE 

and  to  understand  him  not  only  in  relation  to  hit  fur- 

roundiiigs  but  also  to  those  permanent  facts  of  human 
nature  on  which  his  system  is  based.  It  is  possible  that 
in  so  far  as  we  may  succeed  in  doing  this,  data  may  be 
supplied  which  at  other  times  and  in  other  hands  may  be 
utilized  for  purposes  of  dogmatics  ;  but  the  final  adjust- 
tients  of  Christian  doctrine  have  not  been  in  our  thoughts. 

To  this  general  aim  all  other  features  of  the  commentary 
are  subordinate.  It  is  no  part  of  our  design  to  be  in  the 
least  degree  exhaustive.  If  we  touch  upon  the  history  of 
exegesis  it  is  less  for  the  sake  of  that  history  in  itself  than 
as  helping  to  throw  into  clearer  relief  that  interpretation 
which  we  believe  to  be  the  right  one.  And  in  like  manner 
we  have  not  made  use  of  the  Epistle  as  a  means  for 
illustrating  New  Testament  grammar  or  New  Testament 
diction,  but  we  deal  with  questions  of  grammar  and  diction 
just  so  far  as  they  contribute  to  the  exegesis  of  the  text 
before  us.  No  doubt  there  will  be  omissions  which  are  not 
to  be  excused  in  this  way.  The  literature  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  is  so  vast  that  we  cannot  pretend  to  have 
really  mastered  it.  We  have  tried  to  take  account  of 
monographs  and  commentaries  of  the  most  recent  date, 
but  here  again  when  we  have  reached  what  seemed  to  us 
a  satisfactory  explanation  we  have  held  our  hand.  In 
regard  to  one  book  in  particular,  Dr.  Bruce's  St.  Paul's 
Conception  of  Christianity,  which  came  out  as  our  own 
work  was  far  advanced,  we  thought  it  best  to  be  quite 
independent.  On  the  other  hand  we  have  been  glad  to 
have  access  to  the  sheets  relating  to  Romans  in  Dr.  Hort's 
forthcoming  Introductions  to  Romans  and  Ephesians,  which, 
through  the  kindness  of  the  editors,  have  been  in  our 
possession  since  December  last. 

The  Commentary  and  the  Introduction  have  been  about 
equally  divided  between  the  two  editors  ;  but  they  have 
each  been  carefully  over  the  work  of  the  other,  and  they 
desire  to  accept  a  joint  responsibility  for  the  whole.    The 


PREFACE  Ix 

editors  themselves  are  conscious  of  having  gained  much 
by  this  co-operation,  and  they  hope  that  this  gain  may  be 
set  off  against  a  certain  amount  of  unevenness  which  was 
inevitable. 

It  only  remains  for  them  to  express  their  obligations  and 
thanks  to  those  many  friends  who  have  helped  them 
directly  or  indirectly  in  various  parts  of  the  work,  and 
more  especially  to  Dr.  Plummer  and  the  Rev.  F.  E. 
Brightmzm  of  the  Pusey  House.  Dr.  Plummer,  as  editor 
of  the  series,  has  read  through  the  whole  of  the  Com- 
mentary more  than  once,  and  to  his  courteous  and  careful 
criticism  they  owe  much.  To  Mr.  Brightman  they  are 
indebted  for  spending  upon  the  proof-sheets  of  one  half  of 
the  Commentary  greater  care  and  attention  than  many  men 
have  the  patience  to  bestow  on  work  of  their  own. 

The  reader  is  requested  to  note  the  table  of  abbreviations 
on  p.  ex  ff.,  and  the  explanation  there  given  as  to  the 
Greek  text  made  use  of  in  the  Commentary.  Some  addi* 
tional  references  are  given  in  the  Index  (p.  444  ff). 

W.  SANDAY. 
A.  C.  HEADLAM. 

Okvokb,  WMltwntUi$,  1%^ 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION  xiii-cu 

i  I.  Rome  in  A.  D.  58    .        .        ,        ,        .        .        .        .     xiii 
a.  The  Jews  in  Rome .  xviii 

3.  The  Roman  Church xxv 

4.  Time  and  Place,  Occasion  and  Purpose        .        «         ,xx\\\ 

}.  Argument xiiv 

6.  Language  and  Style .       Iii 

f.  Text .    Ixiii 

8.  Literary  History    ........  ixx'w 

9.  Integrity         .......        .Ixxxv 

10.  Commentaries        .......        .xcviii 

Abbreviations       ........      cx-cxii 

COMMENTARY I-436 

Dbtached  Notes: 

The  Theological  Terminolo^  of  Rom.  1.  I-7        .        .        .  17 

The  word  SiKaiof  and  its  cognates 28 

The  Meaning  of  Faith  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  some 

Jewish  Writings 31 

The  Righteousness  of  God 34 

St.  Paul's   Description   of  the  Condition  of  the  Heathen 

World 49 

Use  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  in  Chapter  i       .        .        •        •  $1 

The  Death  of  Christ  considered  as  a  Sacrifice      ...  91 
The  History  of  Abraham  as  treated  by  St.  Paul  and  by 

St  James loa 

Jewish  Teaching  on  Circumcision 108 

The  Place  of  the  Resurrection  ol  Christ  fan  the  teaching  (rf 

St  Paul 116 

li   the    Society  or  tbm  ladivtdital    the   {Hoper  object  of 

Justificatioa  ? 12a 


CONTENTS 

The  Idea  of  Reconciliation  or  Atonement     .       •       »       .  129 

The  Effects  of  Adam's  Fall  in  Jewish  Theology    ,        .        .  136 

St  Paul's  Conception  of  Sin  and  of  the  Fall ....  143 
History  of  the  Interpretation  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of 

iiKaiaxris        .......*.  147 

The  Doctrine  of  Mystical  Union  with  Christ        .        .        .  l63 

The  Inward  Conflict t        .  184 

St  Paul's  View  of  the  Law 187 

The  Person  and  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit      .        .        .        .199 

The  Renovation  of  Nature 2Io 

The  Privileges  of  Israel >3' 

The  Punctuation  of  Rom.  ix.  5 133 

The  Divine  Election 248 

The  Divine  Sovereignty  in  the  Old  Testament     .        .         .  157 

The  Power  and  Rights  of  God  as  Creator     ....  266 
The  Relation  of  St  Paul's  Argument  in  chap,  ix  to  the  Book 

of  Wisdom 267 

A  History  of  the  Interpretation  of  Rom.  ix.  6-29  .        .        .  269 

The  Argument  of  ix.  30-x.  21  :  Human  Responsibility         .  300 

St.  Paul's  Use  of  the  Old  Testament 302 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Remnant        ......  316 

The  Merits  of  the  Fathers 330 

The  Argument  of  Romans  ix-xi 34* 

St  Paul's  Philosophy  of  History 342 

The  Salvation  of  the  Individual :  FreeWill  and  Predesti- 
nation          .        .  347 

Sphitual  Gifts 358 

The  Church  and  the  Civil  Power  ..»•..  369 

The  History  of  the  word  ayuTTi;      ...•••  374 

The  Christian  Teaching  on  Love 376 

The  early  Christian  belief  in  the  nearness  of  the  irmpwwim     .  379 

The  relation  of  Chapters  xii-xiv  to  the  Gospels    .        .        .  381 

What  sect  or  party  is  referred  to  in  Rom.  xiv  ?      ,        .        .  399 

Aquila  and  PrisciU*        .....••.  418 

INDEX  : 

I  Subjects 437 

II  Latin  Words 443 

III  Greek  Words  ........  44J 


INTRODUCTION 


§  I.    Rome  in  a.d.  58. 

It  was  daring  the  winter  57-58,  or  early  in  the  spring  of  the 
year  58,  according  to  almost  all  calculations,  that  St.  Paul  wrote 
his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  that  we  thus  obtain  the  first  trust- 
worthy information  about  the  Roman  Church.  Even  if  there  be 
some  slight  error  in  the  calculations,  it  is  in  any  case  impossible 
that  this  date  can  be  far  wrong,  and  the  Epistle  must  certainly 
have  been  written  during  the  early  years  of  Nero's  reign.  It  would 
be  unwise  to  attempt  a  full  account  either  of  the  city  or  the  empire 
at  this  date,  but  for  the  illustration  of  the  Epistle  and  for  the 
comprehension  of  St.  Paul's  own  mind,  a  brief  reference  to  a  few 
leading  features  in  the  history  of  each  is  necessary '. 

For  certainly  St.  Paul  was  influenced  by  the  name  of  Rome.  In 
Rome,  great  as  it  is,  and  to  Romans,  he  wishes  to  preach  the 
Gospel :  he  prays  for  a  prosperous  journey  that  by  the  will  of  God 
he  may  come  unto  them :  he  longs  to  see  them :  the  universality 
of  the  Gospel  makes  him  desire  to  preach  it  in  the  universal  city '. 
And  the  impression  which  we  gain  from  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  is  supported  by  our  other  sources  of  information.  The 
desire  to  visit  Rome  dominates  the  close  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles :  '  After  I  have  been  there,  I  must  also  see  Rome.'  '  As 
thou  hast  testified  of  me  in  Jerusalem,  so  must  thou  bear  witness 
also  at  Rome'.'  The  imagery  of  citizenship  has  impressed  itself 
upon  his  language  *.  And  this  was  the  result  both  of  his  experience 
and  of  his  birth.  Wherever  Christianity  had  been  preached  the 
Roman  authorities  had  appeared  as  the  power  which  restrained 

*  The  main  aathoritiet  used  for  this  section  are  Fameanx,  Tlu  Annah  of 
Tacitus,  vol.  ii,  and  Schiller,  Gtukithtt  dts  Romiuhtm  Kaisstrreuht  umtet 
der  RtgitruHg  des  Ner», 

*  Rom.  l  8-15. 

*  Acts  xix.  31 ;  xxiiL  ti. 

*  Phil.  L  37 ;  iii.  ao;  Ei^i.  fi.  19;  Acts  zziii.  g. 


XlV  EPISTiJft  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  I 

the  forces  of  erfl  opposed  to  it  *.  The  worst  pereecutioi)  of  the 
Christians  had  been  while  Judaea  was  under  the  rule  of  a  native 
prince.  Eveiywhere  the  Jews  had  stirred  up  persecutions,  and 
the  imperial  oflScials  had  interfered  and  protected  the  Apostle. 
And  so  both  in  this  Epistle  and  throughout  his  life  St.  Paul 
emphasizes  the  duty  of  obedience  to  the  civil  government,  and  the 
necessity  of  fulfilling  our  obligations  to  it.  But  also  St.  Paul  wa^ 
himself  a  Roman  citizen.  This  privilege,  not  then  so  common  as 
it  became  later,  would  naturally  broaden  die  view  and  impress  the 
imagination  of  a  provincial ;  and  it  is  significant  that  the  first  clear 
conception  of  the  universal  character  inherent  in  Christianity,  the 
first  bold  step  to  carry  it  out,  and  the  capacity  to  realize  the  import- 
ance of  the  Roman  Church  should  come  from  an  Apostle  who  was 
not  a  Galilaean  peasant  but  a  citizen  of  a  universal  empire.  '  We 
camiot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  strong  hold  that  Roman  ideas  had 
on  the  mind  of  St.  Paul,'  writes  Mr.  Ramsay,  '  we  feel  compelled 
to  suppose  that  St.  Paul  had  conceived  the  great  idea  of  Christianity 
as  the  religion  of  the  Roman  world ;  and  that  he  thought  of  the 
various  districts  and  countries  in  which  he  had  preached  as  parts  of 
the  grand  unity.  He  had  the  mind  of  an  organizer ;  and  to  him 
the  Christians  of  his  earliest  travels  were  not  men  of  Iconium  and 
of  Antioch — they  were  a  part  of  the  Roman  world,  and  were 
addressed  by  him  as  such  *.' 

It  was  during  the  early  years  of  Nero's  reign  that  St.  Paul  first 
came  into  contact  with  the  Roman  Church.  And  the  period  is 
significant.  It  was  what  later  times  called  the  Quinquennium  of 
Nero,  and  remembered  as  the  happiest  period  of  the  Empire  since 
the  death  of  Augustus  ••    Nor  was  the  judgement  unfounded.    It  is 

'  s  Thess.  ii.  7  4  anrixv,  6  rb  KaT^xov.  It  is  well  known  that  the 
commonest  interpretation  of  these  words  among  the  Fathers  was  the  Roman 
Empire  (see  the  Cattna  of  passages  in  Alford,  iii.  p.  56  fT.),  and  this  accords 
most  suitably  with  the  time  when  the  Epistle  was  written  {c.  53  A.D.).  The 
only  argument  of  any  value  for  a  later  date  and  the  unauthentic  character  of 
the  whole  Epistle  or  of  the  eschatological  sections  (ii.  1-12)  is  the  attempt  to 
explain  this  passage  of  the  return  of  Nero,  but  such  an  interpretation  is  quite 
unnecessary,  and  does  not  particularly  suit  the  words.  St.  Paul's  experience 
had  taught  him  that  there  were  lying  restrained  and  checked  great  forces  of 
evil  which  might  at  any  time  burst  out,  and  this  he  calls  the  '  mystery  of 
iniquity,'  and  describes  in  the  language  of  the  O.  T.  prophets.  But  everywhere 
the  power  of  the  civil  government,  as  embodied  in  the  Roman  Empire  {76 
Karixov)  and  visibly  personified  in  the  Emperor  (0  narixoiv),  restrained  these 
forces.  Such  an  interpretation,  either  of  the  eschatological  passages  of  the 
Epistle  or  of  the  Apocalypse,  does  not  destroy  their  deeper  spiritual  meaning ; 
for  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  as  the  prophets  01  the  Old,  reveal  to  us 
and  generalize  the  spiritual  forces  of  good  and  evil  which  underlie  the  surfiace 
of  society. 

'  Ramsay,  Tk4  Ckurth  in  tkt  Jtcmam  Empirt,  pp.  147, 148;  cf.  also  pp.  60, 
70,  158  n.     See  also  Lightfoot,  Biblical  Essays,  pp.  202-205. 

•  Aur.  Victor,  Cats.  5,  Epit.  12,  Unde  quidam prodidere.  Traianum  solitum 
iktr*,fr$cul  distort  amctcs  principes  m  Nercnis  quinqitennio     The  ezpressioo 


§  L]  ROME  IN  A.D.  58  XV 

probable  that  even  the  worst  excesses  of  Nero,  Uke  die  wont  enielty 

of  Tiberius,  did  little  harm  to  the  mass  of  the  people  even  in  Rome ; 
and  many  even  of  the  faults  of  the  Emperors  assisted  in  working 
out  the  new  ideas  which  the  Empire  was  creating.  But  at  present 
we  have  not  to  do  with  faults.  Members  of  court  circles  might 
have  unpleasant  and  exaggerated  stories  to  tell  about  the  death  of 
Britannicus ;  tales  might  have  been  circulated  of  hardly  pardon- 
able excesses  committed  by  the  Emperor  and  a  noisy  band  of 
companions  wandering  at  night  in  the  streets;  the  more  respect- 
able of  the  Roman  aristocracy  would  consider  an  illicit  union 
with  a  freedwoman  and  a  taste  for  music,  literature,  and  the  drama. 
signs  of  degradation,  but  neither  in  Rome  nor  in  the  provinces 
v\  ould  the  populace  be  offended ;  more  far-seeing  observers  might 
be  able  to  detect  worse  signs,  but  if  any  ordinary  citizen,  or 
if  any  one  acquainted  with  the  provinces  had  been  questioned,  he 
would  certainly  have  answered  that  the  government  of  the  Empire 
was  good.  This  was  due  mainly  to  the  gradual  development  of 
the  ideas  on  which  the  Empire  had  been  founded.  The  structure 
which  had  been  sketched  by  the  genius  of  Caesar,  and  built  up 
by  the  art  of  Augustus,  if  allowed  to  develop  freely,  guaranteed 
naturally  certain  conditions  of  progress  and  good  fortune.  It  was 
due  also  to  the  wise  administration  of  Seneca  and  of  Burros.  It 
was  due  apparently  also  to  flashes  of  gerios  and  love  of  popularity 
on  the  part  of  the  Emperor  himself. 

The  provinces  were  well  governed.  Judaea  was  at  this  time 
preparing  for  insurrection  under  the  role  of  Felix,  but  he  was 
a  legacy  from  the  reign  of  Claudius.  The  diflBculties  in  Armenia 
were  met  at  once  and  vigorously  by  the  appointment  of  Corbulo; 
the  rebellion  in  Britain  was  wisely  dealt  with ;  even  at  the  end  of 
Nero's  reign  the  appointment  of  Vespasian  to  Judaea,  as  soon  as 
the  serious  character  of  the  revolt  was  known,  shows  that  the 
Emperor  still  had  the  wisdom  to  select  and  the  courage  to  appoint 
able  men.  During  the  early  years  a  long  list  is  given  of  trials 
for  repeiundae ;  and  the  number  of  convictions,  while  it  shows  that 
provincial  government  was  not  free  from  corruption,  proves  that 
it  was  becoming  more  and  more  possible  to  obtain  justice.  It 
was  the  corruption  of  the  last  reign  that  was  condemned  by 
the  justice  of  the  present.  In  the  year  56,  Vipsanius  Laenas, 
governor  of  Sardinia,  was  condemned  for  extortion;  in  57, 
Capito,  the  'Cilician  pirate,'  was  struck  down  by  the  senate 
'wiih  a  righteous  thunderbolt.'     Amongst  the  accusations  against 

auinquennium  may  have  been  snggested  by  the  ctrtamen  fuinqtunnaU  which 
Nero  founded  in  Rome,  as  Die  tells  at,  \iv\p  T171  aatTTjpias  r^  re  Suz/toi^i  to9 
Kpdrovs  avTov,  Dio,  £pii.  Ixi.  21 ;  Tac.  Amm.  xiv.  ao;  Soet.  N«r»  la;  CL  the 
coins  described,  Eckhel,  vi.  364 ;  Cohen,  L  p.  aSa,  47-6$.  CKE.  QVIlia 
aoM.  00. 


xvl  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  L 

Suillius  in  58  was  the  misgovernment  of  Asia.     And  not  only  were 

the  favourites  of  Claudius  condemned,  better  men  were  appointed 
in  their  place.  It  is  recorded  that  freedmen  were  never  made 
procurators  of  imperial  provinces.  And  the  Emperor  was  able  in 
many  cases,  in  that  of  Lyons,  of  Cyrene,  and  probably  of  Ephesus, 
to  assist  and  pacify  the  provincials  by  acts  of  generosity  and 
benevolence  \ 

We  may  easily,  perhaps,  lay  too  much  stress  on  some  of  the 
measures  attributed  to  Nero ;  but  many  of  them  show,  if  not  the 
policy  of  his  reign,  at  any  rate  the  tendency  of  the  Empire.  The 
police  regulations  of  the  city  were  strict  and  well  executed  *.  An 
attack  was  made  on  the  exactions  of  pubUcans,  and  on  the  excessive 
power  of  freedmen.  Law  was  growing  in  exactness  owing  to  the 
influence  of  Jurists,  and  was  justly  administered  except  where  the 
Emperor's  personal  wishes  intervened '.  Once  the  Emperor — was  it 
a  mere  freak  or  was  it  an  act  of  far-seeing  political  insight? — 
proposed  a  measure  of  free  trade  for  the  whole  Empire.  Governors 
of  provinces  were  forbidden  to  obtain  condonation  for  exactions  by 
the  exhibition  of  games.  The  proclamation  of  freedom  to  Greece 
may  have  been  an  act  of  dramatic  folly,  but  the  extension  of  Latin 
rights  meant  that  the  provincials  were  being  gradually  put  more 
and  more  on  a  level  with  Roman  citizens.  And  the  provinces 
flourished  for  the  most  part  under  this  rule.  It  seemed  almost  as  if 
the  future  career  of  a  Roman  noble  might  depend  upon  the  goodwill 
of  his  provincial  subjects  *.  And  wherever  trade  could  flourish  there 
wealth  accumulated.  Laodicea  was  so  rich  that  the  inhabitants 
could  rebuild  the  city  without  aid  from  Rome,  and  Lyons  could 
contribute  4,000,000  sesterces  at  the  time  of  the  great  fire  •. 

When,  then,  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  '  powers  that  be '  as  being 
'  ordained  by  God ' ;  when  he  says  that  the  ruler  is  a  minister  of 
God  for  good ;  when  he  is  giving  directions  to  pay  *  tribute '  and 
'  custom ' ;  he  is  thinking  of  a  great  and  beneficent  power  which 
has  made  travel  for  him  possible,  which  had  often  interfered  to 
protect  him  against  an  angry  mob  of  his  own  countrymen,  undei 
which  he  had  seen  the  towns  through  which  he  passed  enjoying 
peace,  prosperity  and  civilization. 

*  For  the  provincial  administration  of  Nero  see  Fnrneaiut,  op.  cit.  pp.  56,  57 ; 
W.  T.  Arnold,  Th*  Roman  System  of  Prcmincial  AdministratUfH,  pp.  135, 137  ; 
Tac.  Ann.  xiii.  30,  31,  33,  50,  51,  53-57. 

*  Suetonius,  Nero  16.     Schiller,  p.  420. 

=•  Schiller,  pp.  381,  381:  *  In  dem  Mechanismus  de»  gerichtlichen  Ver- 
fiihrens,  im  Privatrecht,  in  der  Ausbildnng  nnd  Fordenmg  der  Rechtswiisen- 
schaft,  selbst  anf  dem  Gebiete  der  Apoellation  konnen  gegriindete  Vorwiirfe 
kanm  erhoben  warden.  Die  kaiserliche  Regienmg  liess  die  Verhaltniise  hiei 
nibig  deii  Gang  gehen,  welchea  ibnen  friihere  Regierangen  angewiesen  luuien.' 

*  Tac  Ann.  xv.  ao,  ai. 
'  Arnold,  p.  137. 


f  L]  ROME  IN  A.D.  58  xvii 

Bnt  k  was  not  only  Nero,  it  was  Seneca  *  also  who  was  ruling  in 
Rome  when  St  Paul  wrote  to  the  Church  there.  The  attempt  to 
find  any  connexions  literary  or  otherwise  between  St.  Paul  and 
Seneca  may  be  dismissed ;  but  for  the  growth  of  Christian  principles, 
still  more  perhaps  for  that  of  the  principles  which  prepared  the  way 
for  the  spread  of  Christianity,  the  fact  is  of  extreme  significance.  It 
was  the  first  public  appearance  of  Stoicism  in  Rome,  as  largely  in- 
fluencing politics,  and  shaping  the  future  of  the  Empire.  It  is  a  strange 
irony  that  makes  Stoicism  the  creed  which  inspired  the  noblest 
representatives  of  the  old  regime,  for  it  was  Stoicism  which  provided 
the  philosophic  basis  for  the  new  imperial  system,  and  this  was  nof 
the  last  time  that  an  aristocracy  perished  in  obedience  to  their  own 
morality.  What  is  important  for  our  purpose  is  to  notice  that  the 
humanitarian  and  universalist  ideas  of  Stoicism  were  already  begin- 
ning to  permeate  society.  Seneca  taught,  for  example,  the  equality 
in  some  sense  of  all  men,  even  slaves ;  but  it  was  the  populace  n  ho 
a  few  years  later  (a.d.  61)  protested  when  the  slaves  of  the  murdered 
Pedanius  Secundus  were  led  out  to  execution '.  Seneca  and  many 
of  the  Jurists  were  permeated  with  the  Stoic  ideas  of  humanity  and 
benevolence;  and  however  little  these  principles  might  influence 
their  individual  conduct  they  gradually  moulded  and  changed  the 
law  and  the  system  of  the  Empire. 

If  we  turn  from  the  Empire  to  Rome,  we  shall  find  that  just 
those  vices  which  the  moralist  deplores  in  the  aristocracy  and  the 
Emperor  helped  to  prepare  the  Roman  capital  for  the  advent  of 
Christianity.  If  there  had  not  been  large  foreign  colonies,  there 
could  never  have  been  any  ground  in  the  world  where  Christianity 
could  have  taken  root  strongly  enough  to  influence  the  surrounding 
population,  and  it  was  the  passion  for  luxury,  and  the  taste  for 
philosophy  and  literature,  even  the  vices  of  the  court,  which 
demanded  Greek  and  Oriental  assistance.  The  Emperor  must  have 
teachers  in  philosophy,  and  in  acting,  in  recitation  and  in  flute- 
playing,  and  few  of  these  would  be  Romans.  The  statement  of 
Chrysostom  that  St.  Paul  persuaded  a  concubine  of  Nero  to  accept 
Christianity  and  forsake  the  Emperor  has  probably  little  foundation*, 
the  conjecture  that  this  concubine  was  Acte  is  worthless ;  but  it  may 
illustrate  how  it  was  through  the  non-Roman  element  of  Roman 
society  that  Christianity  spread.  It  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the 
exact  proportion  of  foreign  elements  in  a  Roman  household,  but 
a  study  of  the  names  in  any  of  the  Columbaria  of  the  imperial  period 

*  See  Lightfoot,  Si.  Paul  and  Seneca,  Philippians,  p.  a68.  To  this  period 
of  his  life  belong  the  imoKoKoKvvrojai^,  the  De  dementia,  the  De  Vita  Beata, 
the  De  Beneficiis,  and  the  De  Constantia  Sapientit.  See  Teuffel,  History  ^ 
Roman  Literature,  translated  by  Warr,  ii,  42. 

*  Tac.  Ann.  xiv.  42-45. 

*  Chrysostooa  Horn,  in  AH.  App.  46,  3. 

ll 


xviii  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [§  L 

will  illustrate  how  large  that  element  was.  Men  and  women  oi  every 
race  lived  together  in  the  great  Roman  slave  world,  or  when  they 
had  received  the  gift  of  freedom  remained  attached  as  clients  and 
friends  to  the  great  houses,  often  united  by  ties  of  the  closest 
intimacy  with  their  masters  and  proving  the  means  by  which 
every  form  of  strange  superstition  could  penetrate  into  the  highest 
circles  of  society  *. 

And  foreign  superstition  was  beginning  to  spread.  The  earliest 
monuments  of  the  worship  of  Mithras  date  from  the  time  of  Tiberius. 
Lucan  in  his  Pharsalia  celebrates  the  worship  of  Isis  in  Rome ; 
Nero  himself  reverenced  the  Syrian  Goddess,  who  was  called  by  many 
names,  but  is  known  to  us  best  as  Astarte ;  Judaism  came  near  to  the 
throne  with  Poppaea  Sabina,  whose  influence  over  Nero  is  first  traced 
in  this  year58;  while  the  story  of  PomponiaGraecinawho,inthe 
year  5  7,  was  entrusted  to  her  husband  for  trial  on  the  charge  of 
'foreign  superstition'  and  whose  long  old  age  was  clouded  with 
continuous  sadness,  has  been  taken  as  an  instance  of  Christianity. 
There  are  not  inconsiderable  grounds  for  this  view;  but  in  any 
case  the  accusation  against  her  is  an  illustration  that  there  was 
a  path  by  which  a  new  and  foreign  religion  like  Christianity  could 
make  its  way  into  the  heart  of  the  Roman  aristocracy  *. 


§  a.    The  Jews  in  Rome*. 

There  are  indications  enough  that  when  he  looked  towards 
Rome  St.  Paid  thought  of  it  as  the  seat  and  centre  of  the  Empire. 
But  he  had  at  the  same  time  a  smaller  and  a  narrower  object. 
His  chief  interest  lay  in  those  litde  scattered  groups  of  Christians 
of  whom  he  had  heard  through  Aquila  and  Prisca,  and  probably 

^  We  have  collected  die  following  names  from  the  contents  of  one  colnm- 

barium  (C.  /.  L.  vi.  a,  p.  941).  It  dates  from  a  period  rather  earlier  than  thii. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  proportion  of  foreigners  would  really  be  larger 
than  appears,  for  many  of  them  would  take  a  Roman  name.  Amaranthus  5 180, 
Chrysantus  5183,  Serapio  {bis)  5187,  Pylaemcnianus  5188,  Creticus  5197, 
Asclepiades  5201,  Melicus  5217,  Antigonus  5227,  Cypare  5229,  Lezbius  5221, 
Amaryllis  5258,  Perseus  5279,  Apamea  5287  a,  Ephesia  5299,  Alexandrianus 
5316,  Phyliidianus  5331,  Mithres  6.^44,  Diadumenus  5355,  Philnmenus  5401, 
Philogenes  5410,  Graniae  Nicopolinis  5419.  Corinthus  5439,  Antiochis  5437, 
Athenais  5478,  Eucharistus  5477,  Melitene  5490,  Samothrace,  Mystius  5527, 
Lesbus  5529.  The  following,  contained  among  the  above,  leems  to  have 
a  Sj  ecial  interest :  'H5i;«oj  Ei)o5oC  irpea/SewriJi  ^avafopdruv  rS/v  Kara  Buawopof, 
and  'Aavovpyos  Bto^aao*  vliJi  ipfirjvdis  ^ap/iirwv  0waiiopar6t  S^Oj. 

*  Tac.  Ann   xiii.  32 ;  Lightfoot,  Clement,  L  30. 

*  Since  this  section  was  written  the  author  ha»  had  access  to  Berliner, 
Geschichte  d.Juden  in  Rom  (Frankfurt  a.  M.  1893^  which  has  enabled  him  to 
correct  some  current  misconceptions.  The  facte  are  also  excellently  put  togethf* 
by  Schiirer,  Neutest.  Zeiigesck.  ii.  $05  ff. 


9  a]  THE  JEWS  IN   ROME  xix 

through  others  whom  he  met  on  his  travels.  And  the  thought  of  the 
Christian  Church  would  at  once  connect  itself  with  that  larger 
community  of  which  it  must  have  been  in  some  sense  or  other  an 
oflfshoot,  the  Jewish  settlement  in  the  imperial  city. 

(i)  History.  The  first  relations  of  the  Jews  with  Rome  go  back 
to  the  time  of  the  Maccabaean  princes,  when  the  struggling  patriots 
of  Judaea  had  some  interests  in  common  with  the  great  Republic 
and  could  treat  with  it  on  independent  terms.  Embassies  were 
sent  imder  Judas  *  (who  died  in  i6o  b.c.)  and  Jonathan*  (who  died 
in  143),  and  at  last  a  formal  alliance  was  concluded  by  Simon 
Maccabaeus  in  140,  139*.  It  was  characteristic  that  on  this  last 
occasion  the  members  of  the  embassy  attempted  a  religious 
propaganda  and  were  in  consequence  sent  home  by  the  praetor 
Hispalus  *. 

This  wa«  only  preliminary  'ontact.  The  first  considerable 
settlement  of  the  Jews  in  Rome  dates  from  the  taking  of  Jerusalem 
by  Pompey  in  b.c.  63  •.  A  number  of  the  prisoners  were  sold  as 
slaves;  but  their  obstinate  adherence  to  their  national  customs 
proved  troublesome  to  their  masters  and  most  of  them  were  soon 
manumitted.  These  released  slaves  were  numerous  and  impor- 
tant enough  to  found  a  synagogue  of  their  own  *,  to  which  they 
might  resort  when  they  went  on  pilgrimage,  at  Jerusalem.  The 
policy  of  the  early  emf>erors  favoured  the  Jews.  They  passionately 
bewailed  the  death  of  Julius,  going  by  night  as  well  as  by  day  to 
his  funeral  pyre  "* ;  and  under  Augustus  they  were  allowed  to  form 
a  regular  colony  on  the  further  side  of  the  Tiber*,  roughly  speak- 
ing opposite  the  site  of  the  modern  'Ghetto.'  The  Jews 
quarter  was  removed  to  the  left  bank  of  the  river  in  1556,  and 
has  been  finally  done  away  with  since  the  Italian  occupation. 

'  I  Mace.  viiL  17-33.  *  i  Mace.  rii.  1-4,  16. 

•  I  Mace.  xiv.  74;  XV.  15-24. 

•  This  statement  is  made  on  the  aothority  of  Valerius  Maximns  I.  ili.  2 
(Excerpt.  Parid.) :  Judaeos  qui  Sabazi  Jovis  cultu  Romanos  injicere  mores 
conati  sunt,  repetere  domos  suas  coegit.  Doubt  is  thrown  upon  it  by  Betliner 
(p.  4),  but  without  sufficient  reason.  Val.  Max.  wrote  under  Tiberius,  and  made 
use  of  good  sources.  At  the  same  time,  what  he  says  about  Jupiter  Sabazius 
it  very  probably  based  on  a  misunderstanding ;  nor  need  we  suppose  that  the 
action  of  some  members  of  the  embassy  affected  the  relations  of  the  two  peoples, 

•  This  too  is  questioned  by  Berliner  (p.  5  S.\  who  points  out  that  Philo,  Leg. 
ud  Caium  23,  from  which  the  statement  is  taken,  makes  no  mention  of  Pompey 
But  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  other  occasion  could  answer  to  the  description,  as 
this  does  very  well.  Berliner  however  is  more  probably  right  in  supposing 
that  there  must  have  been  o'her  and  older  settlers  in  Rome  to  account  for  the 
Umgnage  of  Cicero  so  early  as  B.  c  59  (see  below).  These  settlers  may  have 
come  for  purposes  of  trade. 

•  It  was  called  after  them  the  '  synagogue  of  the  Libertini '  (Acts  vi.  10). 
'  Sneton.  Caesar  84. 

•  This  was  the  quarter  asnally  assigned  to  prisoners  of  war  {Bsschrtibung  d 
Uadt  Rom,  III.  iil  578). 

bs 


XX  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  1. 

Here  the  Jews  soon  took  root  and  rapidly  increased  in  numbers. 
It  was  still  under  the  Republic  (b.c.  59)  that  Cicero  in  his  defence 
of  Flaccus  pretended  to  drop  his  voice  for  fear  of  them  \  And 
when  a  deputation  came  from  Judaea  to  complain  of  the  mis- 
rule of  Archelaus,  no  less  than  8000  Roman  Jews  attached  them- 
selves to  it '.  Though  the  main  settlement  was  beyond  the  Tiber 
it  must  soon  have  overflowed  into  other  parts  of  Rome.  The 
Jews  had  a  synagogue  in  connexion  with  the  crowded  Subura* 
and  another  probably  in  the  Campus  Martius.  There  were  syna- 
gogues of  AiyovaTfjcrioi  and  ' Ayptnnrjo-uH  (i.e.  either  of  the  house- 
hold or  under  the  patronage  of  Augustus  *  and  his  minister  Agrippa), 
the  position  of  which  is  uncertain  but  which  in  any  case  bespeak 
the  importance  of  the  community.  Traces  of  Jewish  cemeteries 
have  been  found  in  several  out-!ying  regions,  one  near  the  Porta 
Portuensis,  two  near  the  Via  Appia  and  the  catacomb  of  S.  Callisto, 
and  one  at  Portus,  the  harbour  at  the  mouth  of  the  Tiber '. 

Till  some  way  on  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius  the  Jewish  colony 
flourished  without  interruption.  But  in  a.  d.  19  two  scandalous 
cases  occurring  about  the  same  time,  one  connected  with  the  priests 
of  Isis,  and  ihe  other  with  a  Roman  lady  who  having  become 
a  proselyte  to  Judaism  was  swindled  of  money  under  pretence 
of  sending  it  to  Jerusalem,  led  to  the  adoption  of  repressive 
measures  at  once  against  the  Jews  and  the  Eg)^tians.  Foixr 
thousand  were  banished  to  Sardinia,  nominally  to  be  employed  in 
putting  down  banditti,  but  the  historian  scornfully  hints  that  if  they 
fell  victims  to  the  climate  no  one  would  have  cared  *. 

The  end  of  the  reign  of  Caligula  was  another  anxious  and 
critical  time  for  the  Jews.  Philo  has  given  us  a  graphic  picture  of 
the  reception  of  a  deputation  which  came  with  himself  at  its  head 
to  beg  for  protection  from  the  riotous  mob  of  Alexandria.  The 
half-crazy  emperor  dragged  the  deputation  after  him  from  one  point 
to  another  of  his  gardens  only  to  jeer  at  them  and  refuse  any  further 

*  The  Jews  were  interested  in  this  trial  u  Flaccus  had  laid  hands  00  the 
money  collected  for  the  Temple  at  Jemsalem.  Cicero's  speech  make*  it  dear 
that  the  Jews  of  Rome  were  a  formidable  body  to  offend. 

*  Joseph  An/.  XVII.  xi.  i ;  B./.  II.  vi.  i. 

'  There  is  mention  of  an  dpxoir  'SiPovptiolmr,  C.  /.  G.  6447  (Schtirer, 
Gemeindeverfa^sung  d.  Juden  in  Rom,  pp.  16,  35  ;  Berliner,  p.  94).  Aa 
synagognes  were  not  allowed  within  the  pomotriutn  {ibid,  p.  16)  we  may 
snppose  that  the  synagogue  itself  was  withont  the  walls,  bnt  that  its  frequenter* 
came  from  the  Subura. 

*  Berliner  conjectures  that  the  complimentary  title  may  have  been  giTen  at 
a  sort  of  equivalent  for  emperor- worship  {op.  cit.  p.  Ji). 

'  Data  relating  to  the  synagogues  have  been  obtained  from  inscriptiona, 
which  have  been  carefully  collected  and  commented  upon  by  Schvirer  in  the 
work  quoted  above  (Leipzig,  1879),  also  more  recently  by  Berliner  {tf.  cit. 
p.46ff.). 

*  Tadtna,  AnnaL  ii.  85  j/  #j  grmoitatim  ca$li  inttrissent,  wiU  dammtm. 


f  1.]  THE  JEWS  III  ROME  xxl 

answer  to  their  petition  ^  Caligula  insisted  on  the  setting  up  of 
his  own  bust  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  his  opportune  death 
alone  saved  the  Jews  from  worse  things  than  had  as  yet  befallen 
them  (a.d.  41) 

In  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Claudius  the  Jews  had  friends 
at  court  in  the  two  Herod  Agrippas,  father  and  son.  But  a 
mysterious  notice  of  which  we  would  fain  know  more  shows  them 
once  again  subject  to  measures  of  repression.  At  a  date  which  is 
calculated  at  about  a.d.  52  we  find  Aquila  and  Prisca  at  Corinth 
'because  Claudius  had  commanded  all  the  Jews  to  depart  from 
Rome'  (Acts  xviii.  a).  And  Suetonius  in  describing  what  is 
probably  the  same  event  sets  it  down  to  persistent  tumults  in  the 
Jewish  quarter  'at  the  instigation  of  Chrestus'.'  There  is  at 
least  a  considerable  possibility,  not  to  say  probability,  that  in  this 
enigmatic  guise  we  have  an  allusion  to  the  effect  of  the  early 
preaching  of  Christianity,  in  which  in  one  way  or  another  Aquila 
and  Prisca  would  seem  to  have  been  involved  and  on  that  account 
specially  singled  out  for  exile.  Suetonius  and  the  Acts  speak  of 
a  general  edict  of  expulsion,  but  Dio  Cassius,  who  is  more  precise, 
would  lead  us  to  infer  that  the  edict  stopped  short  of  this.  The 
clubs  and  meetings  (in  the  synagogue)  which  Caligula  had  allowed, 
were  forbidden,  but  there  was  at  least  no  wholesale  expulsion  *. 

Any  one  of  three  interpretations  may  be  put  upon  impuhore  ChresU 
atsidu4  tutnultuantes.     (i)  The  words  may  be  taken  literally  as  they  stand. 

*  Chrestus '  was  a  common  name  among  slaves,  and  there  may  have  been  an 
individual  of  that  name  who  was  the  author  of  the  disturbances.  This  is  the 
▼iew  of  Meyer  and  Wieseler.  (ii)  Or  it  is  very  possible  that  there  may  be 
a  confusion  between  'Chrestus'  and  'Christus.'  TertuUian  accuses  the 
Pagans  of  pronouncing  the  name  '  Christians '  wrongly  as  if  it  were  Chres- 
tiani,  and  so  bearing  unconscious  witness  to  the  gentle  and  kindly  character 
of  those  who  owned  it.  Sed  et  cum  perperam  Chrestianus  pronunciatut 
a  vobis  {nam  nee  nominis  certa  est  notitia  penes  vos)  de  suavitate  vel  benif^i- 
tate  compositum  tst  {Apol.  3;  cf  Justin,  Apol.  i.  §  4).  If  we  suppose  some 
such  very  natural  confusion,  then  the  disturbances  may  have  had  their  origin 
in  the  excitement  caused  by  the  Messianic  expectation  which  was  ready  to 
break  out  at  slight  provocation  wherever  Jews  congregated.  This  is  the 
view  of  Lange  and  others  including  in  part  Lightfoot  {Philippians,  p.  169). 
(iii)  There  remains  the  third  possibility,  lor  which  some  preference  has  been 
expressed  above,  that  the  disturbing  cause  was  not  the  Messianic  expectation 
in  general  but  the  particular  form  of  it  identified  with  Christianity.  It  is 
certain  that  Christianity  must  have  been  preached  at  Rome  as  early  as  this; 
and  the  preaching  of  it  was  quite  as  likely  to  lead  to  actual  violence  and 
riot  as  at  Thessalonica  or  Anti<jch  or  Pisidia  or  Lystra  (Acts  xvii.  5 ;  xiv.  19; 

*  Leg.  ad  Caium  44,  45. 

'  Sueton.  Claud.  35  Judae»s  impuhore  Ckrtste  iusidu$  tumultuantts  Roma 
txpulit. 

'  Dio  Cassius,  Ix.  6  tovs  t«  "lot/Saiovt,  vXtoviusavTos  aZ$ii  S/arf  xa^ffws  iv 
StKV  Tapaxfjs  vir6  tov  6x^°^  aipSJv  ttjs  irSKtem  (ipxSrjvat,  ovk  {(■fjKaat  (liv,  r^  di 
S^  varpiqi  vS/Kf}  0ii^  xf'f^^^'^^^  tKtKfvgt  fiif  cvva$poiita$ou,  ria  r«  ircuptiai 
iwQyax(f*io<u  inri  rov  tatov  ti4\v9«. 


XXH  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [§  * 

xiii.  50).  That  it  did  so,  and  that  this  is  the  fact  alluded  to  by  Stietonins  is 
the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  German  scholars  from  Baur  onwards.  It  ia 
impossible  to  verify  any  one  of  the  three  hypotheses  ;  but  the  last  would  fit 
in  well  with  all  that  we  know  and  woald  add  an  interesting  touch  if  it  men 

tni*'. 

The  edict  of  Claudius  was  followed  in  about  three  years  by  hit 

death  (a. d.  $4).  Under  Nero  the  Jews  certainly  did  not  lose  bui 
probably  rather  gained  ground.  We  have  seen  that  just  as  St  Paul 
wrote  his  Epistle  Poppaea  was  beginning  to  exert  her  influence.  Like 
many  of  her  class  she  dallied  with  Judaism  and  befriended  Jews.  The 
mime  Aliturus  was  a  Jew  by  birth  and  stood  in  high  favour*.  Heron 
Agrippa  II  was  also,  like  his  father,  a  persona  grata  at  the  Roman 
court.  Dio  Cassius  sums  up  the  history  of  the  Jews  under  the 
Empire  in  a  sentence  which  describes  well  their  fortunes  at  Rome. 
Though  their  privileges  were  often  curtailed,  they  increased  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  force  their  way  to  the  recognition  and  toleration  oi 
their  peculiar  customs '. 

(2)  Organization,     The   policy  of  the   emperors   towards  the 

Jewish  nationality  was  on  the  whole  liberal  and  judicious.  They 
saw  that  they  had  to  deal  with  a  people  which  it  was  at  once  difficult 
to  repress  and  useful  to  encourage ;  and  they  freely  conceded 
the  rights  which  the  Jews  demanded.  Not  only  were  they  allowed 
the  free  exercise  of  their  religion,  but  exceptional  privileges  were 
granted  them  in  connexion  with  it  Josephus  {Ant.  XIV.  x.) 
quotes  a  number  of  edicts  of  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar  and 
after  his  death,  some  of  them  Roman  and  some  local,  securing  to 
the  Jews  exemption  from  service  in  the  army  (on  religious  grounds), 
freedom  of  worship,  of  building  synagogues,  of  forming  clubs  and 
collecting  contributions  (especially  the  didrachma)  for  the  Temple 
at  Jerusalem.  Besides  this  in  the  East  the  Jews  were  largely 
permitted  to  have  their  own  courts  of  justice.  And  the  wonder 
is  that  in  spite  of  all  their  fierce  insurrections  against  Rome  these 
rights  were  never  permanently  withdrawn.  As  late  as  the  end  of 
the  second  century  (in   the  pontificate  of  Victor  189-199  a.  d.) 

*  A  suggestion  was  made  ia  the  Church  Quarterly  Review  for  Oct  1894, 
which  deserves  consideration ;  vir.  that  the  dislocation  of  the  Jewish  com- 
aiunity  caused  by  the  edict  of  Claudius  may  explain  '  why  th«  \1hurch  of  the 
capital  did  not  grow  to  the  same  extent  as  elsevxhere  out  e*  '"^^  svaagognf 
Even  when  St.  Paul  arrived  there  in  bonds  the  chiefs  of  the  resto^tfr'  JewisI 
organization  profe.^std  to  have  heard  nothing,  officially  or  UDCSSii'j.'U,  of  the 
Apostle,  and  to  know  about  the  Christian  sect  just  what  we  ma^  i'^'-.ose  the 
rioters  ten   years   earlier  knew,  that  it  was  "  evei  ywhere    spok^  against " ' 

(p.  175)- 

'   Vit.  Joseph.  3;  Ant.  XX.  viii.  11. 

*  Dio  Cassius  xxxvii.  17  lan  Kal  irapd.  roit 'FojjMiiois  rb  ytvot  toSto,  mKovffti^ 
pip  voK/Jucis  av£7]6iy  Si   iwi  wKftCTov,  Sicrrt   mti    tit   wappTiffiar  r^s  vtuivtm' 


f  a.]  THE  JEWS   IN   ROME  XxHi 

Callistus,  who  afterwards  himself  became  Bishop  of  Rome,  was 
banished  to  the  Sardinian  mines  for  forcibly  breaking  up  a  Jewish 
meeting  for  worship  (Hippol.  Refut.  Haer.  ix.  12). 

There  was  some  natural  difference  between  the  East  and  the 
West  corresponding  to  the  difference  in  number  and  concentration 
of  the  Jewish  population.  In  Palestine  the  central  judicial  and 
administrative  body  was  the  Sanhedrin  ;  after  the  Jewish  War  the 
place  of  the  Sanhedrin  was  taken  by  the  Ethnarch  who  exercised 
great  powers,  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  voluntarily  submitting  to 
him.  At  Alexandria  also  there  was  an  Ethnarch,  as  well  as  a 
central  board  or  senate,  for  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  the 
community.  At  Rome,  on  the  other  hand,  it  would  appear  that 
each  synagogue  had  its  own  separate  organization.  This  would 
consist  of  a  •  senate '  (yfpouo-ia),  the  members  of  which  were  the 
'  elders '  (irp«o-/3vr*po«).  The  exact  relation  of  these  to  the  '  rulers ' 
(e[px^*^0  •*  ^^^  quite  clear :  the  two  terms  may  be  practically 
equivalent ;  or  the  apxovrtt  may  Se  a  sort  of  committee  within  the 
larger  body  *.  The  senate  had  its  '  president '  {ytpov^-idpxns) ;  and 
among  the  rulers  one  or  more  would  seem  to  have  been  charged 
with  the  conduct  of  the  services  in  the  synagogue  {dpxi<rwayu>yos, 
apxivvvaytayoi).  Under  him  would  be  the  {mrjptTTis  {Chazan)  who 
performed  the  minor  duties  of  giving  out  and  putting  back  the 
sacred  rolls  (Luke  iv.  ao),  inflicted  scourging  (Matt.  x.  1 7),  and 
acted  as  schoolmaster.  The  priests  as  such  had  no  special  status 
in  the  synagogue.  We  hear  at  Rome  of  wealthy  and  influential 
j)eople  who  were  called  '  father '  or  •  mother  of  the  synagogue  * ; 
this  would  be  an  honorary  title.  There  is  also  mention  of  a  wpo- 
9TaTi)s  or  patr onus,  who  would  on  occasion  act  for  the  synagogue 
in  its  relation  to  the  outer  world. 

(3)  Social  status  and  condition.  There  weic  certainly  Jews  of 
rank  and  position  at  Rome.  Herod  the  Great  had  sent  a  number 
<rf  his  sons  to  be  educated  there  (the  ill-fated  Alexander  and 
Aristobulus  as  well  as  Archelaus,  Antipas,  and  Philip  the  tetrarch  •). 
At  a  later  date  other  members  of  the  family  made  it  their  home 
(Herod  the  first  husband  of  Herodias,  the  younger  Aristobulus, 
and  at  one  time  Herod  Agrippa  I).  There  were  also  Jews  attached 
in  one  way  or  another  to  the  imperial  houseliokl  (we  have  had 
mention  of  the  synagogues  of  the  Agrippesii diXid.  Augusiesii).  These 
would   be  found  in  the  more  aristocratic  quarters.     The   jews' 

*  This  is  the  view  of  Schiirer  {Gtmtindeverf.  p.  aa).  The  point  is  not 
discussed  by  Berliner.  Dr.  Edersheim  appears  to  regard  the  '  elders '  as 
identical  with  the  'rulers,'  and  the  ^pxicvvayaiyos  as  chief  of  the  body.  He 
would  make  the  functions  of  the  yepovainpxrjs  political  rather  than  religiuus, 
and  he  speaks  of  this  office  as  if  it  were  confined  to  the  Dispersion  of  the  V\'est 
{Lt/e  and  Tima,  &c.  L  438).  These  are  points  whkh  must  be  regarded  aa 
more  or  less  open. 

»  Joi.  Ant.  XV.  X.  I ;  XVH.  L  J. 


XXiv  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  ft 

quarter  proper  was  the  reverse  of  aristocratic.  The  fairly  plentifal 
notices  which  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  works  of  the  Satirists 
lead  us  to  think  of  the  Jews  of  Rome  as  largely  a  population  of 
beggars,  vendors  of  small  wares,  sellers  of  lucifer  matches,  collectors 
of  broken  glass,  fortune-tellers  of  both  sexes.  They  haunted  the 
Aventine  with  their  baskets  and  wisps  of  hay  *.  Thence  they  would 
sally  forth  and  try  to  catch  the  ear  especially  of  the  wealthier 
Roman  women,  on  whose  superstitious  hopes  and  fear*  they  might 
play  and  earn  a  few  small  coins  by  their  pains '. 

Between  these  extremes  we  may  infer  the  existence  of  a  more 
substantial  trading  class,  both  from  the  success  which  at  this  period 
had  begun  to  attend  the  Jews  in  trade  and  from  the  existence  of 
the  numerous  synagogues  (nine  are  definitely  attested)  which  it 
must  have  required  a  considerable  amount  and  some  diffusion  of 
wealth  to  keep  up.     But  of  this  class  we  have  less  direct  evidence. 

In  Rome,  as  everywhere,  the  Jews  impressed  the  observer  by 
their  strict  performance  of  the  Law.  The  Jewish  sabbath  was 
proverbial.  The  distinction  of  meats  was  also  carefully  maintained  *. 
But  along  with  these  external  observances  the  Jews  did  succeed  in 
bringing  home  to  their  Pagan  neighbours  the  contrast  of  their 
purer  faith  to  the  current  idolatries,  that  He  whom  they  served 
did  not  dwell  in  temples  made  with  hands,  and  that  He  was  not  to 
be  likened  to  '  gold  or  silver  or  stone,  graven  by  art  and  device 
of  man.' 

It  is  difficult  to  say  which  is  more  conspicuous,  the  repulsion  or 
the  attraction  which  the  Jews  exercised  upon  the  heathen  world. 
The  obstinate  tenacity  with  which  they  held  to  their  own  customs, 
and  the  rigid  exclusiveness  with  which  they  kept  aloof  from  all 
others,  offended  a  society  which  had  come  to  embrace  all  the  varied 
national  religions  with  the  same  easy  tolerance  and  which  passed 
from  one  to  the  other  as  curiosity  or  caprice  dictated.  They 
looked  upon  the  Jew  as  a  gloomy  fanatic,  whose  habitual  expres- 
sion was  a  scowl.  It  was  true  that  he  condemned,  as  he  had 
reason  to  condemn,  the  heathen  laxity  around  him.  And  his 
neighbours,  educated  and  populace  alike,  retaliated  with  bitter 
hatred  and  scorn. 

At  the  same  time  all — and  there  were  many — who  were  in  search 

'  The  purpose  of  this  is  somewhat  nncertain :  it  may  h«Te  been  used  to  pack 

their  wares. 

'  The  passages  on  which  this  description  is  based  are  well  known.  Small 
Trades  :  Martial,  Epig.  I.  xlii.  3-5  ;  XII.  Ivii.  13,  14.  Mendicancy:  Juvenal, 
Sat.  iii.  14;  vi.  542  ft.  Proselytism:  Horace,  Sat.  I.  iv.  143  f.;  Juvenal,  Sat. 
xiv.  96  £F. 

'  Horace,  Sat.  I.  ii.  69  f. ;  Juvenal,  Sat.  xiv.  96  ff.  (of  proselytes) ;  Persioi, 
Sat.  v.  184  ;  Sueton.  Aug.  76.  The  texts  of  Greek  and  Latin  authors  relating 
to  Judaism  have  recently  been  collected  in  a  complete  and  convenient  form  by 
Theodore  Reinach  {TexUs  rdatifs  aujudaisme,  Paris,  1895). 


THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  XXV 

irf"  a  purer  creed  tfian  their  own,  knew  that  the  Jew  had  something 
to  give  them  which  they  could  not  get  elsewhere.  The  heathen 
Pantheon  was  losing  its  hold,  and  thoughtful  minds  were  '  feeling 
after  if  haply  they  might  find '  the  one  God  who  made  heaven  and 
earth.  Nor  was  it  only  the  higher  minds  who  were  conscious  of 
a  strange  attraction  in  Judaism.  Weaker  and  more  superstitious 
natures  were  impressed  by  its  lofty  claims,  and  also  as  we  may 
believe  by  the  gorgeous  apocalyptic  visions  which  the  Jews  of  this 
date  were  ready  to  pour  out  to  them.  The  seeker  wants  to  be  told 
something  that  he  can  do  to  gain  the  Divine  favour;  and  of  such 
demands  and  precepts  there  was  no  lack.  The  inquiring  Pagan 
was  met  with  a  good  deal  of  tact  on  the  part  of  those  whom  he 
consulted.  He  was  drawn  on  little  by  little ;  there  was  a  place  for 
every  one  who  showed  a  real  sympathy  for  the  faith  of  Israel.  It 
was  not  necessary  that  he  should  at  once  accept  circumcision  and 
the  whole  burden  of  the  Mosaic  Law ;  but  as  he  made  good  one 
step  another  was  proposed  to  him,  and  the  children  became  in 
many  cases  more  zealous  than  their  fathers  \  So  round  most  of 
the  Jewish  colonies  there  was  gradually  formed  a  fringe  of  Gentiles 
more  or  less  in  active  sympathy  with  their  religion,  the  '  devout 
men  and  women,'  '  those  who  worshipped  God '  {tiat^els,  o-f/So'/xewt, 
tTf^ofitvot  TOP  Qfop,  (fio^ovfifvoi  Tov  Ofov)  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
For  the  student  of  the  origin  of  the  Christian  Church  this  class  is 
of  great  importance,  because  it  more  than  any  other  was  the  seed 
plot  of  Christianity ;  in  it  more  than  in  any  other  the  Gospel  took 
root  and  spread  with  ease  and  rapidity  '. 


I  5.    The  Roman  Church. 

(i)  Origin.  The  most  probable  view  of  the  origin  <A  the 
Christian  Church  in  Rome  is  substantially  that  of  the  commen- 
tator known  as  Ambrosiaster  (see  below,  §  10).  This  fourth- 
century  writer,  himself  probably  a  member  of  the  Roman  Church, 
does  not  claim  for  it  an  apostolic  origin.  He  thinks  that  it  arose 
among  the  Jews  of  Rome  and  that  the  Gentiles  to  whom  they 
conveyed  a  knowledge  of  Christ  had  not  seen  any  miracles  or  any 
of  the  Apostles*.     Some  such  conclusion  as  this  fits  in  well  with 

*  Javenal,  .Sis/,  xiv.  96  ff. 

'  See  the  very  ample  collection  of  material  oa  this  sobject  in  Sditirer, 

Neutest.  Zeitgtsch.  ii.  558  flf. 

'  Constat  itaqut  temporibus  apostolorum  ludaeos,  propterea  quod  sub  regno 
Romano  agerent,  Romae  habitasse :  ex  quibus  hi  qui  crediderant,  tradiderunt 
Rtmanis  ut  Ckrittum  profiUntes,  Legtm  servarent .  .  .  Romanis  autem  irasci 
mam  debuit.  tad  tt  laudare  fidam  ilhrum ;  quia  nuBa  insignia   virtuiutn 


XXVi  EFXSTLB  TO  THE  ROMANS  [f  A 

the  phenomena  of  the  Epistle.  St  Paul  would  hardlj  have  written 
as  he  does  if  the  Church  had  really  been  founded  by  an  Apostle. 
He  clearly  regards  it  as  coming  within  his  own  province  as  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  (Rom.  i.  6,  14  f.);  and  in  this  very  Epistle  he  lays 
it  down  as  a  principle  governing  all  his  missionary  labours  that  he 
will  not  'build  upon  another  man's  foundation'  (Rom.  xv.  ao). 
If  an  Apostle  had  been  before  him  to  Rome  the  only  supposition 
which  would  save  his  present  letter  from  clashing  with  this  would 
be  that  there  were  two  distinct  churches  in  Rome,  one  Jewish- 
Christian  the  other  Gentile-Christian,  and  that  St.  Paul  wrote  only 
to  the  latter.  But  not  only  is  there  no  hint  of  such  a  state  of 
things,  but  the  letter  itself  (as  we  shall  see)  implies  a  mixed 
community,  a  community  not  all  of  one  colour,  but  embracing 
in  substantial  proportions  both  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

At  a  date  so  early  as  this  it  is  not  in  itself  likely  that  the  Apostles 
of  a  faith  which  grew  up  under  the  shadow  of  Jewish  particu- 
larism would  have  had  the  enterprise  to  cast  their  glance  so  far 
west  as  Rome.  It  was  but  natural  that  the  first  Apostle  to  do 
this  should  be  the  one  who  both  in  theory  and  in  practice  had 
struck  out  the  boldest  line  as  a  missionary ;  the  one  who  had 
formed  the  largest  conception  of  the  possibilities  of  Christianity, 
the  one  who  risked  the  most  in  the  effort  to  realize  them,  and  who 
as  a  matter  of  principle  ignored  distinctions  of  language  and  of 
race.  We  see  St.  Paul  deliberately  conceiving  and  long  cherishing 
the  purpose  of  himself  making  a  journey  to  Rome  (Acts  xix.  ai ; 
Rom.  i.  13;  XV.  aa-24).  It  was  not  however  io  found  a  Church, 
at  least  in  the  sense  of  first  foundation,  for  a  Church  already 
existed  with  sufficient  unity  to  have  a  letter  written  to  it. 

If  we  may  make  use  of  the  data  in  ch.  xvi — and  reasons  will 
be  given  for  using  them  with  some  confidence — the  origin  of  the 
Roman  Church  will  be  fairly  clear,  and  it  will  agree  exactly  with 
the  probabilities  of  the  case.  Never  in  the  course  of  previous 
history  had  there  been  anything  like  the  freedom  of  circulation 
and  movement  which  now  existed  in  the  Roman  Empire*.  And 
this  movement  followed  certain  definite  lines  and  set  in  certain 
definite  directions.  It  was  at  its  greatest  all  along  the  Eastern 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  its  general  trend  was  to  and  from 
Rome.  The  constant  coming  and  going  of  Roman  officials,  as 
one  provincial  governor  succeeded  another  ;  the  moving  of  troops 

vidtntes,  nee  aliquem  afostolorum,  susceperant  fidem  Chriiti  ritu  licet  Iitdaif 
(S.  Ambrosii  0pp.  iii.  373  f.,  ed,  Ballerini).  We  shall  see  that  Ambrosiastei 
exagi^'ciates  the  strictly  Jewish  influence  od  the  Church,  but  io  bi>  genenJ 
conclusion  he  is  mure  right  than  we  might  have  expected. 

'  '  The  conditions  of  travelling,  for  ease,  salety,  and  rapidity,  over  the 
greater  part  of  the  Roman  empire,  were  such  as  in  part  have  only  been  reached 
again  in  Europe  since  the  beginning  ol  the  present  oeatary'  (Friedlaodei, 
SitUngexhickU  Rmms,  tt.  j). 


§  8.]  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  xxvlf 

fiom  place  to  place  with  the  sending  of  fresh  batches  of  recruits 
and  the  retirement  of  veterans  ;  the  incessant  demands  of  an  ever- 
increasing  trade  both  in  necessaries  and  luxuries ;  .the  atti-action 
which  the  huge  metropolis  naturally  exercised  on  the  imagination 
of  the  clever  young  Orientals  who  knew  that  the  best  openings  for 
a  career  were  to  be  sought  there ;  a  thousand  motives  of  ambition, 
business,  pleasure  drew  a  constant  stream  from  the  Eastern  pro- 
vinces to  Rome.  Among  the  crowds  there  would  inevitably  be  some 
Christians,  and  those  of  very  varied  nationality  and  antecedents, 
St.  Paul  himself  had  for  the  last  three  years  been  stationed  at  one  of 
the  greatest  of  the  Levantine  emporia.  We  may  say  that  the  three  great 
cities  at  which  he  had  spent  the  longest  time — Antioch,  Corinth, 
Ephesus — were  just  the  three  from  which  (with  Alexandria)  inter- 
course was  most  active.  We  may  be  sure  that  not  a  few  of  his 
own  disciples  would  ultimately  find  their  way  to  Rome.  And  so 
we  may  assume  that  all  the  owners  of  the  names  mentioned  in 
ch.  xvi  had  some  kind  of  acquaintance  with  him.  In  several  cases 
he  adds  some  endearing  little  expression  which  implies  personal 
contact  and  interest :  Epaenetus,  Ampliatus,  Stachys  are  all  his 
'  beloved ';  Urban  has  been  his  '  helper ';  the  mother  of  Rufus  had 
been  also  as  a  mother  to  him ;  Andronicus  and  Junia  (or  Junias) 
and  Herodion  are  described  as  his  '  kinsmen ' — i.  e.  perhaps  his 
fellow-tribesmen,  possibly  like  him  natives  of  Tarsus.  Andronicus 
and  Junias,  if  we  are  to  take  the  expression  literally,  had  shared 
one  of  his  imprisonments.  But  not  by  any  means  all  were 
St.  Paul's  own  converts.  The  same  pair,  Andronicus  and  Junias, 
were  Christians  of  older  standing  than  himself.  Epaenetus  is 
described  as  the  first  convert  ever  made  from  Asia :  that  may  of 
course  be  by  the  preaching  of  St.  Paul,  but  it  is  also  possible  that 
he  may  have  been  converted  while  on  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem. 
If  the  Aristobulus  whose  household  is  mentioned  is  the  Herodian 
prince,  we  can  easily  understand  that  he  might  have  Christians 
about  him.  That  Prisca  and  Aquila  should  be  at  Rome  is  just 
what  we  might  expect  from  one  with  so  keen  an  eye  for  the 
strategy  of  a  situation  as  St.  Paul.  When  he  was  himself  esta- 
blished and  in  full  work  at  Ephesus  with  the  intention  of  visiting 
Rome,  it  would  at  Once  occur  to  him  what  valuable  work  they  might 
be  doing  there  and  what  an  excellent  preparation  they  might  make 
for  his  own  visit,  while  in  his  immediate  surroundings  they  were 
almost  superfluous.  So  that  instead  of  presenting  any  difficulty, 
that  he  should  send  them  back  to  Rome  where  they  were  already 
known,  is  most  natural. 

In  this  way,  the  previous  histories  of  the  friends  to  whom  St.  Paul 
sends  greeting  in  ch.  xvi  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  the  circum- 
stances which  would  bring  together  a  number  of  similar  groups  of 
Christians  at  Rome.    Some  from  Palestine,  some  from  Corinth, 


XXViii  BPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  A 

some  from  Ephesus  and  other  parts  of  proconsular  Asia,  possibly 
some  from  Tarsus  and  more  from  the  Syrian  Antioch,  there  was  in 
the  first  instance,  as  we  may  believe,  nothing  concerted  in  their 
going ;  but  when  once  they  arrived  in  the  metropolis,  the  free- 
masonry common  amongst  Christians  would  soon  make  them 
known  to  each  other,  and  they  would  form,  not  exactly  an  organized 
Church,  but  such  a  fortuitous  assemblage  of  Christians  as  was  only 
waiting  for  the  advent  of  an  Apostle  to  constitute  one. 

For  other  influences  than  those  of  St.  Paul  we  are  left  to  general 
probabilities.  But  from  the  fact  that  there  was  a  synagogue  specially 
assigned  to  the  Roman  'Libertini'  at  Jerusalem  and  that  this 
synagogue  was  at  an  early  date  the  scene  of  public  debates  between 
Jews  and  Christians  (Acts  vi.  9),  with  the  further  fact  that  regiilar 
communication  would  be  kept  up  by  Roman  Jews  frequenting  the 
feasts,  it  is  equally  clear  that  Palestinian  Christianity  could  hardly 
fail  to  have  its  representatives.  We  may  well  believe  that  the 
vigorous  preaching  of  St.  Stephen  would  set  a  wave  in  motion 
which  would  be  felt  even  at  Rome.  If  coming  from  such  a  source 
we  should  expect  the  Jewish  Christianity  of  Rome  to  be  rather  of 
the  freer  Hellenistic  type  than  marked  by  the  narrowness  of 
Pharisaism.  But  it  is  best  to  abstain  from  anticipating,  and  to  form 
our  idea  of  the  Roman  Church  on  better  grounds  than  conjecture. 

If  the  yiew  thus  given  of  the  origin  of  the  Roman  Chnrch  is  correct,  h 
involves  the  rejection  of  two  other  views,  one  of  which  at  least  has  imposing 
authority ;  viz.  (i)  that  the  Church  was  founded  by  Jewish  pilgrims  from  the 
First  Pentecost,  and  (ii)  that  its  tree  founder  was  St.  Peter. 

(i)  We  are  told  expressly  that  among  those  who  listened  to  St.  Peter's 
address  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost  were  some  who  came  from  Rome,  both 
bom  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  and  proselytes.  When  these  returned  they 
would  naturally  take  with  them  news  of  the  strange  things  which  were 
happening  in  Palestine.  But  unless  they  remained  for  some  time  in  Jerusalem, 
and  unless  they  attended  very  diligently  to  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles, 
which  would  as  yet  be  informal  and  not  accompanied  by  any  regular  system 
of  Catechesis,  they  would  not  know  enough  to  make  them  in  the  full  sense 
'  Christians ' ;  still  less  would  they  be  in  a  position  to  evangelize  others. 
Among  this  first  group  there  would  doubtless  be  some  who  would  go  back 
predisposed  and  prepared  to  receive  fuller  instruction  in  Christianity ;  they 
might  be  at  a  similar  stage  to  that  of  the  disciples  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  at 
Ephesus  (Acts  xix.  2  ff.) ;  and  under  the  successive  impact  of  later  visits 
(their  own  or  their  neighbours')  to  Jerusalem,  we  could  imagine  that  their 
faith  would  be  gradually  consolidated.  But  it  would  take  more  than  they 
brought  away  from  the  Day  of  Pentecost  to  lay  the  foundations  of  a 
Church. 

(ii)  The  traditional  founder  of  the  Roman  Chnrch  is  St.  Peter.  But  it  is 
only  in  a  very  qualified  sense  that  this  tradition  can  be  made  good.  We 
may  say  at  once  that  we  are  not  prepared  to  go  the  length  of  those  who 
would  deny  the  connexion  of  St.  Peter  with  the  Roman  Church  altogether. 
It  is  true  that  tiiere  is  hardly  an  item  in  the  evidence  which  is  not  subject  to 
some  dedncticm.  The  evidence  which  is  definite  is  somewhat  late,  and  the 
evidence  wliich  it  early  ia  either  too  uncertain  or  too  slight  and  vague  to 


««.] 


THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  XXix 


carry  a  clear  conclosion '.  Most  decisive  of  all,  if  it  held  good,  would  be 
die  allnsion  in  St  Peter's  own  First  Epistle  if  the  '  Babylon '  from  which  he 
writes  (i  Pet.  v.  13)  is  really  a  covert  name  for  Rome.  This  was  the  view  ol 
the  Early  Chorch,  and  although  perhaps  not  absolutely  certain  it  is  in  accord- 
ance with  all  probability.  The  Apocalypse  confessedly  puts  '  Babylon  *  for 
Rome  (Rev.  xiv.  8;  xvi.  19,  &c.),  and  when  we  remember  the  common 
practice  among  the  Jewish  Rabbis  of  disguising  their  allusions  to  the  op- 
pressor *,  we  may  believe  that  Christians  also,  when  they  had  once  become 
inspected  and  persecuted,  might  have  fallen  into  the  habit  of  using  a  secret 
language  among  themselves,  even  where  there  was  less  occasion  for  secresy. 
When  once  we  adopt  this  view,  a  number  of  details  in  the  Epistle  (such 
M  the  mention  of  Silvanus  and  Mark,  and  the  points  of  contact  between 
I  Peter  and  Romans)  find  an  easy  and  natural  explanation '. 

The  genuine  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  (c.  97  a.d.)  couples  together 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  in  a  context  dealing  with  persecution  in  such  a  way 
as  to  lend  some  support  to  the  tradition  that  both  Apostles  had  perished 
there*;  and  the  Epistle  of  Ignatius  addressed  to  Rome  {c.  115  a.d.)  appeals 
to  both  Apostles  as  authorities  which  the  Roman  Church  would  be  likely  to 
recognire ' ;  but  at  the  utmost  this  proves  nothing  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
Church.  When  we  descend  a  step  later,  Dionysius  of  Corinth  {e.  171  a.d.) 
does  indeed  couple  the  two  Apostles  as  having  joined  in  '  planting '  the 
Church  of  Rome  as  they  had  done  previously  that  of  Corinth  *.  But  this 
Epistle  alone  is  proof  that  if  St.  Paul  could  be  said  to  have  'planted'  the 
Church,  it  could  not  be  in  the  sense  of  first  foundation ;  and  a  like  considera- 
tion must  be  taken  to  qualify  the  statements  of  Irenaeus  ^  By  the  beginning 
of  the  third  century  we  get  in  Tertullian  •  and  Cains  of  Rome  *  explicit 
references  to  Rome  as  the  scene  of  the  double  martyrdom.  The  latter  writer 
points  to  the  '  trophies '  (rai  rpSnaia  '•)  of  the  two  Apostles  as  existing  in  his 
day  on  the  Vatican  and  by  the  Ostian  Way.  This  is  conclusive  evidence  as 
to  the  belief  of  the  Roman  Church  about  the  year  300.  And  it  is  followed 
by  another  piece  of  evidence  which  is  good  and  precise  as  Car  as  it  goes. 

*  The  summary  which  follows  contains  only  the  main  points  and  none  of  the 
Indirect  evidence.  For  a  fuller  presentation  the  reader  may  be  referred  to 
Lightfoot,  Si.  CUment  ii.  490  ff.,  and  Lipsius,  Apokr.  Aposttl^esck.  ii.  1 1  ff. 

^  On  this  practice,  see  Biesenthal,  Trostschreiben  an  du  Hebrder,  p.  3  ff. ; 
and  for  a  defence  of  the  view  that  SL  Peter  wrote  his  First  Epistle  from  Rome, 
Lightfoot,  St.  Clement  ii.  491  f. ;  Von  Soden  in  Handcomtnentar  III.  iL  105  f. 
&C.  Dr.  Hort,  who  had  paid  special  attention  to  this  Epistle,  seems  to  have 
held  the  same  opinion  {Judaistit  Christianity,  p.  155). 

*  There  is  a  natural  reluctance  in  the  lay  mind  to  take  iv  BafivXmvi  in  any 
other  sense  than  literally.  Still  it  is  certainly  to  be  so  taken  in  Orac.  Sibyll.  t. 
159  (Jewish) ;  and  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  advocates  of  this  view 
include  men  of  the  most  diverse  opinions,  not  only  the  English  scholars  men- 
tioned above  and  Dollinger,  but  Renan  and  the  Tiibingen  school  generally. 

*  Ad  Cor.  V.  4  ff.  »  Ad  Rom.  iv.  3. 

*  Eus.  H.  E.  II.  xxT.  «.  *  Adv.  Haer.  III.  iii.  a,  3. 

*  Scarp.  15;  £>e  Praetcript.  36.  »  Eus.  B.  E.  II.  xxv.  6,  7. 

"  There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  the  exact  meaning  of  this  word. 
The  leading  Protestant  archaeologists  (Lipsius,  Erbes,  V.  Schultze)  hold  that 
it  refers  to  some  conspicuous  mark  of  the  place  of  martyrdom  (a  famous 
'  terebinth '  near  the  naumcuhium  on  the  Vatican  (Mart.  Pet.  et  Paul.  63)  and 
a  *  pine-tree '  near  the  road  to  Ostia.  The  Roman  Catholic  authorities  would 
refer  it  to  the  '  tombs '  or  '  memorial  chapels '  (m4moriae).  It  seems  to  ns 
probable  that  buildings  of  some  kind  were  already  in  existence.  For  statements 
of  the  opposing  views  see  Lipsius,  Apokr.  Ap»st$lgtS(k.  iL  ai ;  De  Waal,  Dit 
Apottelgruft  mi  Cmtaeumbiu,  p.  14  ff. 


XXX  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  » 

Two  fotuth-centnry  docnx&enti,  both  in  texts  which  have  nndeigone  lomt 

corruption,  the  Martyrologium  Hiertnymianum  (ed.  Duchesne,  p.  84)  and 

•  Deposits  Martyrum  in  the  work  of  Philocalus,  the  so-called  '  chronographer 
of  the  year  354,'  connect  a  removal  of  the  bodies  of  the  two  Apostles  with 
the  consulship  of  Tuscus  and  Bassus  in  the  year  358.  There  is  some 
ambiguity  as  to  the  localities  from  and  to  which  the  bodies  were  moved ; 
bat  the  most  probable  view  is  that  in  the  Valerian  persecution  when  the 
cemeteries  were  closed  to  Christiana,  the  treasured  relics  were  transferred  to 
the  site  known  as  Ad  Cmtatumbcu  adjoining  the  present  Church  of  St 
Sebastian  ^.  Here  they  remained,  according  to  one  version,  for  a  year  and 
seven  months,  according  to  another  for  forty  years.  The  later  story  of  an 
attempt  by  certain  Orientals  to  steal  them  away  seems  to  have  grown  out  of 
a  misunderstanding  of  an  inscription  by  Pope  Damasus  (366-384  A.D.)*- 

Here  we  have  a  chain  of  substantial  proof  that  the  Roman  Church  fiillj 
believed  itself  to  be  in  possession  of  the  mortal  remains  of  the  two  Apostles 
as  far  back  as  the  year  aoo,  a  tradition  at  that  date  already  firmly  established 
and  associated  with  definite  well-known  local  monuments.  The  tradition  as 
to  the  twenty-five  years'  episcopate  of  St.  Peter  presents  some  points  of  re- 
semblance. That  too  appears  for  the  first  time  in  the  fourth  century  with 
Eusebius  (c.  325  A.D.)  and  his  follower  Jerome.  By  skilful  analysis  it  is 
traced  back  a  full  hundred  years  earlier.  It  appears  to  be  derived  from  a  list 
drawn  np  probably  by  Hippolytus^.  Lipsius  would  carry  back  this  liat 
a  little  further,  and  would  make  it  composed  under  Victor  in  the  last  decade 
of  the  second  century*,  and  Lightfoot  seems  to  think  it  possible  that  the 
figures  for  the  duration  of  the  several  episcopates  may  have  been  present  in 
the  still  older  list  of  Hegesippus,  writing  under  Eleutherus  {c.  175-190  A.D.)*. 

Thus  we  have  the  twenty-five  years'  episcopate  of  St  Peter  certainly 
believed  in  towards  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  third  century,  if  not  by 
the  beginning  of  the  last  quarter  of  the  second.  We  are  coming  back  to 
a  time  when  a  continuous  tradition  is  beginning  to  be  possible.  And  yet  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  bringing  St.  Peter  to  Rome  at  a  date  so  early  as  the 
year  43  (which  seems  to  be  indicated)  are  so  great  as  to  make  the  acceptanof 
of  this  chronology  almost  impossible.  Not  only  do  we  find  St.  Peter  to  all 
appearance  still  settled  at  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  Council  in  A.D.  51, 
but  we  have  seen  that  it  is  highly  improbable  that  he  had  visited  Rome 
when  St.  Paul  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Church  there.  And  it  is  hardly  less 
improbable  that  a  visit  had  been  made  between  this  and  the  later  Epistles 
(Phil.,  Col.,  Eph.,  Philem.).  The  relations  between  the  two  Apostles  and  ci 
both  to  the  work  of  missions  in  general,  would  almost  compel  some  allusion 
to  such  a  visit  if  it  had  taken  place.  Between  the  years  58  or  61-63  and  170 
there  is  quite  time  for  legend  to  grow  up ;  and  Lipsius  has  pointed  out 
a  possible  way  in  which  it  might  arise  *.  There  is  evidence  that  the  tradition 
of  our  Lord's  command  to  the  Apostles  to  remain  at  Jerusalem  for  twelve 
years  after  His  Ascension,  was  current  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
The  travels  of  the  Apostles  are  usually  dated  from  the  end  of  this  period 

'  The  best  account  of  this  transfer  is  that  given  by  Duchesne,  Libtr  Pontifi- 
ttUii  i.  cri  f. 

"  So  Lipsius,  after  Erbes,  Apokr.  Apostelgesch.  ii.  335  f.,  391  ff.  ;  also  Light- 
foot,  Clement  ii.  500.  The  Roman  Catholic  writers,  Kraus  and  De  Waal, 
would  connect  the  story  with  the  jealousies  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  ia 
the  first  century :  see  the  latter's  Die  Apostelgruft  ad  Catacumbas,  pp.  33  £, 
49  ff.  This  work  contains  a  full  survey  of  the  controversy  with  new  archaeo 
logical  details. 

*  Lightfoot,  op.  n<r.  L  359  ff. ;  33^ 

•  Ap.  Lightfoot.  pp.  337,  333.  •  Did.  p^  |j|. 

*  Apokr^  AposUlf^k.  ii  a?,  i^ 


«•] 


THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  xxxl 


(i.e  about  41-41  A.D.).  That  the  traditional  date  of  the  death  of  St.  Petei 
is  67  or  68 ;  and  subtracting  43  from  67  we  get  just  the  35  years  required. 
It  was  assumed  that  St.  Peter's  episcopate  dated  from  his  first  arrival  in 
Rome. 

So  far  the  ground  is  fairly  clear.  But  when  Lipsius  goes  further  than  this 
and  denies  the  Roman  visit  im  Mo,  his  criticism  seems  to  us  too  drastic '. 
He  arrives  at  his  result  thus.  He  traces  a  double  stream  in  the  tradition. 
On  the  one  hand  there  is  the  '  Petro-pauline  tradition '  which  regards  the  two 
Apostles  as  establishing  the  Church  in  friendly  co-operation  '.  The  outlines 
of  this  have  been  slcetched  above.  On  the  other  hand  there  is  the  tradition 
of  the  conflict  of  St.  Peter  with  Simon  Magus,  which  under  the  figure  of 
Simon  Magus  made  a  disguised  attack  upon  St.  Paul '.  Not  only  does 
Lipsius  think  that  this  is  the  earliest  form  of  the  tradition,  but  he  regards  it 
as  the  original  of  all  other  forms  which  brought  St.  Peter  to  Rome  * :  the 
only  historical  ground  for  it  which  he  would  allow  is  the  visit  of  St.  Paul. 
This  does  not  seem  to  us  to  be  a  satisfactory  explanation.  The  traces  of  the 
Petro-pauline  tradition  are  really  earlier  than  those  of  the  Ebionite  legend. 
The  way  in  which  they  are  introduced  is  free  from  all  suspicion  They  are 
supported  by  collateral  evidence  (St.  Peter's  First  Epistle  and  the  traditions 
relating  to  St.  Mark)  the  weight  of  which  is  considerable.  There  is  practic- 
ally no  conflicting  tradition.  The  claim  of  the  Roman  Church  to  joint 
foundation  by  the  two  Apostles  seems  to  have  been  nowhere  disputed.  And 
even  the  Ebionite  fiction  is  more  probable  as  a  distortion  of  facts  that  have 
a  basis  of  truth  than  as  pure  invention.  The  visit  of  St.  Peter  to  Rome,  and 
his  death  there  at  some  uncertain  date  ',  seem  to  us,  if  not  removed  beyond 
all  possibility  of  doubt,  yet  as  well  established  as  many  of  the  leading  facts 
of  history. 

(a)  Composition.  The  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Roman 
Church  has  little  more  than  an  antiquarian  interest ;  it  is  an  isolated 
fact  or  series  of  facts  which  does  not  greatly  affect  either  the  picture 
which  we  form  to  ourselves  of  the  Church  or  the  sense  in  which 
we  understand  the  Epistle  addressed  to  it.  It  is  otherwise  with 
the  question  as  to  its  composition.  Throughout  the  Apostolic  age 
the  determining  factor  in  most  historical  problems  is  the  relative 

*  It  is  significant  that  on  this  point  Weizsickcr  parts  company  from  Lipsioi 
\4^st.  Zeitatt.  p.  485). 

■  Op.  <*.  p.  1 1  flf.  *  nid.  p.  a8  ft 

«  Ibid.  p.  63  flf. 

•  There  is  no  substantial  reason  for  supposing  the  death  of  St.  Peter  to  have 
taken  place  at  the  same  time  as  that  of  St.  Paul.  It  is  true  that  the  two 
Apostles  are  commemorated  upon  the  same  day  Qune  39),  and  that  the 
Chronicle  of  Eusebius  refers  their  deaths  to  the  same  year  (a.d.  67  Vers. 
Armen. ;  68  Hieron.).  But  the  day  is  probably  that  of  the  deposition  or  re- 
moval of  the  bodies  to  or  from  the  Church  of  St.  Sebastian  (see  above)  ;  and 
for  the  year  the  evidence  b  very  insufficient  Professor  Ramsay  (^The  Church 
in  the  Raman  Empirt,  p.  279  flf.)  would  place  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  in 
the  middle  of  the  Flavian  period,  A.D.  75-80 ;  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
authorities  are  not  such  as  to  impose  an  absolute  veto  on  this  view.  The  fact 
that  tradition  connects  the  death  of  St.  Peter  with  the  Vatican  would  seem  t« 
point  to  the  great  persecution  of  a.d.  64 ;  but  the  state  of  things  implied  in 
the  Epistle  does  not  look  as  if  it  were  anterior  to  this.  On  the  other  hand, 
Professor  Ramsay's  arguments  have  greatly  shaken  the  objectioas  to  the  tradi- 
tioaal  date  of  the  death  of  St  PaoL 


xxxll  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  ft. 

preponderance  of  the  Jewish  element  or  the  Gentile.  Which  ol 
these  two  elements  are  we  to  think  of  as  giving  its  character  to 
the  Church  at  Rome?  Directly  contrary  answers  have  been  given 
to  the  question  and  whole  volumes  of  controversy  have  grown  up 
around  it ;  but  in  this  instance  some  real  advance  has  been  made, 
and  the  margin  of  difference  among  the  leading  critics  is  not  now 
very  considerable. 

Here  as  in  so  many  other  cases  elsewhere  the  sharper  statement  of 
the  problem  dates  from  Baur,  whose  powerful  influence  drew  a  long 
train  of  followers  after  him;  and  here  as  so  often  elsewhere  the 
manner  in  which  Baur  himself  approaches  the  question  is  deter- 
mined not  by  the  minute  exegesis  of  particular  passages  but  by 
a  broad  and  comprehensive  view  of  what  seems  to  him  to  be  the 
argument  of  the  Epistle  as  a  whole.  To  him  the  Epistle  seems  to 
be  essentially  directed  against  Jewish  Christians.  The  true  centre 
of  gravity  of  the  Epistle  he  found  m  chaps,  ix-xi.  St.  Paul  there 
grapples  at  close  quarters  with  the  objection  that  if  his  doctrine 
held  good,  the  special  choice  of  Israel — its  privileges  and  the 
promises  made  to  it — all  fell  to  the  ground.  At  first  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  stress  laid  by  Baur  on  these  three  chapters  in  com- 
parison with  the  rest  was  exaggerated  and  one-sided.  His  own 
disciples  criticized  the  position  which  he  took  up  on  this  point,  and 
he  himself  gradually  drew  back  from  it,  chiefly  by  showing  that 
a  like  tendency  ran  through  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Epistle. 
There  too  St.  Paul's  object  was  to  argue  with  the  Jewish  Christians 
and  to  expose  the  weakness  of  their  reliance  on  formal  obedience 
to  the  Mosaic  Law. 

The  writer  who  has  worked  out  this  view  of  Baur's  most  elabo- 
rately is  Mangold.  It  is  not  difficult  to  show,  when  the  Epistle  is 
closely  examined,  that  there  is  a  large  element  in  it  which  is 
essentially  Jewish.  The  questions  with  which  it  deals  are  Jewish, 
the  validity  of  the  Law,  the  nature  of  Redemption,  the  principle  on 
which  man  is  to  become  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God,  the  choice 
of  Israel.  It  is  also  true  that  the  arguments  with  which  St.  Paul 
meets  these  questions  are  very  largely  such  as  would  appeal 
specially  to  Jews.  His  own  views  are  linked  on  directly  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  it  is  to  the  Old  Testament 
that  he  goes  in  support  of  them.  It  is  fair  to  ask,  what  sort  of 
relevance  arguments  of  this  character  would  have  as  addressed  to 
Gentiles. 

It  was  also  possible  to  point  to  one  or  two  expressions  in  detail 
which  might  seem  to  favour  the  assumption  of  Jewish  readers. 
Such  would  be  Rom.  iv.  i  where  Abraham  is  described  (in  the 
most  probable  text)  as  '  our  forefather  according  to  the  flesh '  (to» 
wporruTopa  fiftiv  Kara  aapKa).  To  that  however  it  was  obvious  to 
leply  that  in  i  Cor.  x.  i  St.  Paul  spoke  of  the  Israelites  in  the 


§  8.]  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  xxxiij 

wUdemess  as  *  our  fathers,'  though  no  one  would  maintain  that  the 
Corinthian  Christians  were  by  birth  Jews.  There  is  more  weight 
— indeed  there  is  real  weight — in  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
section,  Rom.  vii.  i-6,  where  not  only  are  the  readers  addressed 
as  ad(\(poi  fiov  (which  would  be  just  as  possible  if  they  were  con- 
verts from  heathenism)  but  a  sustained  contrast  is  drawn  between 
an  earlier  state  under  the  Law  (6  vo/jlos  vv.  i,  4,  5,  6;  not  vv.  2,  3 
where  the  force  of  the  article  is  different)  and  a  later  state  of  free- 
dom from  the  Law.  It  is  true  that  this  could  not  have  been 
written  to  a  Church  which  consisted  wholly  of  Gentiles,  unless  the 
Apostle  had  torgotten  himself  for  the  moment  more  entirely  than 
he  is  likely  to  have  done.  Still  such  expressions  should  not  be 
pressed  too  far.  He  associates  his  readers  with  himself  in  a  manner 
somewhat  analogous  to  that  in  which  he  writes  to  the  Corinthians, 
as  if  their  spiritual  ancestry  was  the  same  as  his  own.  Nor  was 
this  without  reason.  He  regards  the  whole  pre-Messianic  period 
as  a  period  of  Law,  of  which  the  Law  of  Moses  was  only  the  most 
conspicuous  example. 

It  is  a  minor  point,  but  also  to  some  extent  a  real  one,  that  the 
exhortations  in  chs.  xiii,  xiv  are  probably  in  part  at  least  addressef' 
to  Jews.  That  turbulent  race,  which  had  called  down  the  inter- 
ference of  the  civil  power  some  six  or  seven  years  before,  needed 
a  warning  to  keep  the  peace.  And  the  party  which  had  scruples 
about  the  keeping  of  days  is  more  likely  to  have  been  Jewish  than 
Gentile.  Still  that  would  only  show  that  some  members  of  the 
Roman  Church  were  Jews,  not  that  they  formed  a  majority.  Indeed 
in  this  instance  the  contrary  would  seem  to  be  the  case,  because 
their  opponents  seem  to  have  the  upper  hand  and  all  that  St.  Paul 
asks  for  on  their  behalf  is  toleration. 

We  may  take  it  then  as  established  that  there  were  Jews  in  the 
Church,  and  that  in  substantial  numbers;  just  as  we  also  cannot 
doubt  that  there  was  a  substantial  number  of  Gentiles.  The  direct 
way  in  which  St.  Paul  addresses  the  Gentiles  in  ch.  xi.  13  ff.  {v/up 
fie  Xey«  rois  fdvtviv  k.tX)  would  be  pfoof  sufBcient  of  this.  But  it 
is  further  clear  that  St.  Paul  regards  the  Church  as  broadly  and  in 
the  main  a  Gentile  Church.  It  is  the  Gentile  element  which  give* 
it  its  colour.  This  inference  cannot  easily  be  explained  away  from 
the  passages,  Rom.  L  5-7,  13-15;  xv.  14-16.  In  the  first  St.  Paul 
numbers  the  Church  at  Rome  among  the  Gentile  Churches,  and 
bases  on  his  own  apostleship  to  the  Gentiles  his  right  to  address 
them.  In  the  second  he  also  connects  the  obligations  he  is  under 
to  preach  to  them  directly  with  the  general  fact  that  all  Gentiles 
without  exception  are  his  province.  In  the  third  he  in  like  manner 
excuses  himself  courteously  for  the  earnestness  with  which  he  haa 
written  by  an  appeal  to  his  commission  to  act  as  the  priest  who 
lays  upon  the  altar  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles  as  his  ofifering. 


XXXiv  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  S 

This  then  is  the  natural  construction  to  put  upon  the  Apostle'i 
language.  The  Church  to  which  he  is  writing  is  Geniile  in  its 
general  complexion;  but  at  the  same  time  it  contains  so  many 
born  Jews  that  he  passes  easily  and  freely  from  the  one  body  to 
the  other.  He  does  not  feel  bound  to  measure  and  weigh  his 
words,  because  if  he  writes  in  the  manner  which  comes  most 
naturally  to  himself  he  knows  that  there  will  be  in  the  Church 
many  who  will  understand  him.  The  fact  to  which  we  have 
already  referred,  that  a  large  proportion  even  of  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians would  have  approached  Christianity  through  the  portals  of 
a  previous  connexion  with  Judaism,  would  tend  to  set  him  still 
more  at  his  ease  in  this  respect.  We  shall  see  in  the  next  section 
that  the  force  which  impels  the  Apostle  is  behind  rather  than  in 
front.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  had  any  exact  statistics 
before  him  as  to  the  composition  of  the  Church  to  which  he  was 
writing.  It  was  enough  that  he  was  aware  that  a  letter  such  at  he 
has  written  was  not  likely  to  be  thrown  away. 

If  he  had  stayed  to  form  a  more  exact  estimate  we  may  take  the 
greetings  in  ch.  xvi  as  a  rough  indication  of  the  lines  that  it  would 
follow.  The  collection  of  names  there  points  to  a  mixture  of 
nationalities.  Aquila  at  least,  if  not  also  Prisca*,  we  know  to  have 
been  a  Jew  (Acts  xviii.  a).  Andronicus  and  Junias  and  Herodion 
are  described  as  '  kinsmen '  (<n/yyfmy)  of  the  Apostle :  precisely 
what  this  means  is  not  certain — perhaps  'members  of  the  same 
tribe ' — but  in  any  case  they  must  have  been  Jews.  Mary  (Miriam) 
is  a  Jewish  name  ;  and  Apelles  reminds  us  at  once  of  ludaeus  Apella 
(Horace,  Sat.  I.  v.  loo).  And  there  is  besides  '  the  household  of 
Aristobulus,'  some  of  whom — if  Aristobulus  was  really  the  grandson 
of  Herod  or  at  least  connected  with  that  dynasty — would  probably 
have  the  same  nationality.  F"our  names  (Urbanus,  Ampliatus, 
Rufus,  and  Julia )  are  Latin.  The  rest  (ten  in  number)  are  Greek 
with  an  indeterminate  addition  in  'the  household  of  Narcissus.' 
Some  such  proportions  as  these  might  well  be  represented  in  the 
Church  at  large. 

(3)  Status  and  Condition.  The  same  list  of  names  may  give  us 
some  idea  of  the  social  status  of  a  representative  group  of  Roman 
Christians.  The  names  are  largely  those  of  slaves  and  freedmen. 
In  any  case  the  households  of  Narcissus  and  Aristobulus  would 
belong  to  this  category.  It  is  not  inconceivable,  though  of  course 
not  proveable,  that  Narcissus  may  be  the  well-known  freedman  of 
Claudius,  put  to  death  in  the  year  54  a.d.,  and  Aristobulus  the 
•cion  of  the  house  of  Herod.     We  know  that  at  the  time  when 


•  See  the  note  on  eh.  xvi.  3,  where  reference  \%  made  to  the  view  faTonred 
by  Dr.  Hort  {Rom.  and  Epk.  p.  la  ff.),  that  Priica  was  a  Roman  lady  belongiof 
to  the  well-kaown  family  of  that  1 


M] 


THE  ROMAN  CHURCH  XXXV 


St  Paul  wrote  to  the  Philippians  Christianity  had  penetrated  into 
the  retinue  of  the  Emperor  himself  (Phil.  iv.  22).  A  name  like 
Philologus  seems  to  point  to  a  certain  degree  of  culture.  We 
should  therefore  probably  not  be  wrong  in  supposing  that  not 
only  the  p)oorer  class  of  slaves  and  freedmen  is  represented.  And 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  better  sort  of  Greek  and  some 
Oriental  slaves  would  often  be  more  highly  educated  and  more 
refined  in  manners  than  their  masters.  There  is  good  reason  to 
think  that  Pomponia  Graecina,  the  wife  of  Aulus  Plautius  the 
conqueror  of  Britain,  and  that  in  the  next  generation  Flavins 
Clemeng  and  Domitilla,  the  near  relations  and  victims  of  Domitian, 
had  come  under  Christian  influence*.  We  should  therefore  be 
justified  in  supposing  that  even  at  this  early  date  more  than  one  of 
the  Roman  Christians  possessed  a  not  inconsiderable  social  stand- 
ing and  importance.  If  there  was  any  Church  in  which  the  '  not 
many  wise  men  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble/ 
had  an  exception,  it  was  at  Rome. 

When  we  look  again  at  the  list  we  see  that  it  has  a  tendency  to 
&11  into  groups.  We  hear  of  Prisca  and  Aquila,  *  and  the  Church 
that  is  in  their  house,'  of  the  household  of  Aristobulus  and  the 
Christian  members  of  the  household  of  Narcissas,  of  Asyncritus,  &c. 
'and  the  brethren  that  are  with  them,'  of  Philologus  and  certain 
companions  '  and  all  the  saints  that  are  with  them.'  It  would  only 
be  what  we  should  expect  if  the  Church  of  Rome  at  this  time 
consisted  of  a  number  of  such  little  groups,  scattered  over  the 
great  city,  each  with  its  own  rendezvous  but  without  any  complete 
and  centralized  organization.  In  more  than  one  of  the  incidental 
notices  of  the  Roman  Church  it  is  spoken  of  as  '  foundeii '  (Iren. 
Adv.  Haer.  III.  i.  i  ;  iii.  3 )  or  '  planted '  (Dionysius  of  Corinth  in 
Eus.  H.  E.  II.  XXV.  8)  by  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  It  may  well  be 
that  although  the  Church  did  not  in  the  strict  sense  owe  to  these 
Apostles  its  origin,  it  did  owe  to  them  its  first  existence  as  an 
organized  whole. 

We  must  not  however  exaggerate  the  want  of  organization  at 
the  time  when  St.  Paul  is  writing.  The  repeated  allusions  to 
'  labouring '  (xowtai/)  in  the  case  of  Mary,  Tryphaena  and  Tryphosa, 
and  Persis — all,  as  we  observe,  women — points  to  some  kind  of 
regular  ministry  (cf.  for  the  quasi-technical  sense  of  Ktmiav  i  Thess. 
V.  12;  I  Tim.  V.  17).  It  is  evident  that  Prisca  and  Aquila  took 
the  lead  which  we  should  expect  of  them  ;  and  they  were  well 
trained  in  St.  Paul's  methods.  Even  without  the  help  of  an 
Apostle,  the  Church  had  evidently  a  life  of  its  own;  and  where 
there  is  life  there  is  sure  to  be  a  spontaneous  tendency  to  definite 
trticulation  of  function.     When  St  Paul  and  St  Peter  arrived  w« 

*  lightfoot,  CUirunt,  L  30-39,  *c 


XXXVl  BPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  9- 

■lay  believe  diat  they  would  find  the  work  half  done ;  still  it  would 
wait  the  seal  of  their  presence,  as  the  Church  of  Samaria  waited  foi 
the  coming  of  Peter  and  John  (Acts  viiL  14). 


^  4.   The  Time  and  Place,  Occasion  and  Purpose, 

OF  THE  Epistle. 

(i)  Tme  and  Place.  The  time  and  place  at  which  the  Epistle 
was  written  are  easy  to  determine.  And  the  simple  and  natural 
way  in  which  the  notes  of  both  in  the  Epistle  itself  dovetail  into  the 
narrative  of  the  Acts,  together  with  the  perfect  consistency  of  the 
whole  group  of  data — subtle,  slight,  and  incidental  as  they  are — in 
the  two  documents,  at  once  strongly  confirms  the  truth  of  the 
history  and  would  almost  alone  be  enough  to  dispose  of  the 
dodrinairt  objections  which  have  been  brought  against  the 
Epistle. 

St.  Paul  had  long  cherished  the  desire  of  paying  a  visit  to  Rome 
(Rom.  i.  13;  XV.  23),  and  that  desire  he  hopes  very  soon  to  see 
fulfillvd;  but  at  the  moment  of  writing  his  face  is  turned  not 
westwards  but  eastwards.  A  collection  has  been  made  in  the 
Greek  Churches,  the  proceeds  of  which  he  is  with  an  anxious  mind 
about  to  convey  to  Jerusalem.  He  feels  that  his  own  relation  and 
that  of  the  Churches  of  his  founding  to  the  Palestinian  Church  is 
a  delicate  matter;  the  collection  is  no  lightly  considered  act  of 
passing  charity,  but  it  has  been  with  him  the  subject  of  long  and 
earnest  deliberation ;  it  is  the  olive-branch  which  he  is  bent  upon 
offering.  Great  issues  turn  upon  it ;  and  he  does  not  know  how  it 
will  be  received '. 

We  hear  much  of  this  collection  in  the  Epistles  written  about 
this  date  ( i  Cor.  xvi.  i  ff . ;  2  Cor.  viii.  i  ff . ;  ix.  i  ff.).  In  the 
Acts  it  is  not  mentioned  before  the  fact;  but  retrospectively  in 
the  course  of  St.  Paul's  address  before  Felix  allusion  is  made  to 
it:  'after  many  years  I  came  to  bring  alms  to  my  nation  and 
offerings'  (Actsxxiv.  17).  Though  the  collection  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  Acts,  the  order  of  the  journey  is 
mentioned.  When  his  stay  at  Ephesus  was  drawing  to  an  end 
we  read  that  'Paul  purposed  in  the  spirit,  when  he  had  passed 
through  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  saying,  After 
I  have  been  there,  I  must  also  see  Rome'  (Acts  xix.  21).  Part  of 
this  programme  has  been  accomplished.  At  the  time  of  writing 
St.  Paul  seems  to  be  at  the  capital  of  Achaia.     The  allusions 

*  On  this  collection  aee  an  ezotUent  artide  by  Mr.  Readall  in  Tkt  Expositor 
1893,  ii.  3ai  ff. 


^  4.]  TIME  AND  PLACE  XXXvH 

which  point  to  this  would  none  cf  them  taken  separately  be 
certain,  but  in  combination  they  amount  to  a  degree  of  pro- 
bability which  is  little  short  of  certainty.  The  bearer  of  the 
Epistle  appears  to  be  one  Phoebe  who  is  an  active,  perhaps  an 
official,  member  of  the  Church  of  Cenchreae,  the  harbour  of 
Corinth  (Rom.  xvi.  i).  The  house  in  which  St.  Paul  is  staying, 
which  is  also  the  meeting-place  of  the  local  Church,  belongs  to 
Gaius  (Rom.  xvi.  33);  and  a  Gaius  St.  Paul  had  baptized  at 
Corinth  (1  Cor.  i.  14).  He  sends  a  greeting  also  from  Erastus, 
who  is  described  as  '  oeconomus'  or  '  treasurer*  of  the  city.  The 
office  is  of  some  importance,  and  points  to  a  city  of  some  im- 
portance. This  woiild  agree  with  Corinth;  and  just  at  Corinth 
we  learn  from  2  Tim.  iv.  20  that  an  Erastus  was  left  behind  on 
St.  Paul's  latest  journey— naturally  enough  if  it  was  his  home. 

The  visit  to  Achaia  then  upon  which  these  indications  converge 
is  that  which  is  described  in  Acts  xx.  a,  3.  It  occupied  three 
months,  which  on  the  most  probable  reckoning  would  fall  at 
the  beginning  of  the  year  58.  St.  Paul  has  in  his  company  at 
this  time  Timothy  and  Sosipater  (or  Sopater)  who  join  in  the 
greeting  of  the  Episde  (Rom.  xvi.  21)  and  are  also  mentioned 
in  Acts  XX.  4.  Of  the  remaining  four  who  send  their  greetings 
we  recognize  at  least  Jason  of  Thessalonica  (Rom.  xvi.  21 ;  cf. 
Acts  xvii.  6).  Just  the  lightness  and  unobtrusiveness  of  all  these 
mutual  coincidences  affixes  to  the  works  in  which  they  occur 
the  stamp  of  reality. 

The  date  thus  clearly  indicated  biingt  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  into 
close  connexion  with  the  two  Epistles  to  Corinthians,  and  less  certainly  with 
the  Epistle  to  Galatians.  We  tiave  seen  how  the  collection  for  the  Churches 
of  Judaea  is  one  of  the  links  which  bind  together  the  first  three.  Many 
other  subtler  traces  of  synchronism  in  thought  and  style  have  been  pointed 
out  between  all  four  (especially  by  Bp.  Lightfoot  in  Joum.  of  Class,  and 
Sacr.  PhiM.  iii  [1857],  p.  289  ff.;  also  Galatians,  p.  43  ff.,  ed.  a).  The 
relative  position  of  i  and  2  Corinthians  and  Romans  is  fixed  and  certain. 
If  Romans  was  written  in  the  early  spring  of  A.o.  58,  then  i  Corinthians 
wonld  fall  in  the  spring  and  1  Corinthians  in  the  autumn  of  A.D.  57^.  In 
regard  to  Galatians  the  data  are  not  so  decisive,  and  different  views  are  held. 
The  older  opinion,  and  that  which  would  seem  to  be  still  dominant  in 
Germany  (it  is  maintained  by  Lipsius  writing  in  1891),  is  that  Galatians 
belongs  to  the  early  part  of  St.  Paul's  long  stay  at  Ephesus,  A.  D.  54  or  55. 
In  England  Bp.  Lightfoot  found  a  number  of  followers  in  bringing  it  into 
closer  juxtaposition  with  Romans,  about  the  winter  of  A.D.  tj^-jiS.  The 
question  however  has  been  recently  reopened  in  two  opposite  oirections :  on 
the  one  hand  by  Dr.  C.  Clemen  {Cktonologie  der paulinischtn  Brief e,  Halle, 
1893),  who  would  place  it  after  Romans;  and  on  the  other  hand  by 

*  Jiilicher,  in  his  recent  Einleitung,  p.  6a,  separates  the  two  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians  by  an  interval  of  eighteen  months ;  nor  can  this  opinion  be  at  once 
ruled  out  of  court,  though  it  seems  opposed  to  i  Cor.  xvi.  8,  from  which  we 
rather  that  when  he  wrote  the  first  Epistle  St.  Panl  did  oot  contemplate  staying 
IB  Ephesos  longer  than  the  next  succeeding  Pentecost 


XXXviii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  4 

Mr.  F.  Rendall  in  The  Expositor  for  April,  1894  (p.  154  ff.),  who  would 

place  it  some  years  earlier. 

Clemen,  who  propounds  a  novel  view  of  the  chronology  of  St.  Paul's  life 
generally,  would  interpose  the  Council  of  Jerusalem  (which  he  identifies  with 
the  visit  of  Acts  xxi  and  not  with  that  of  Acts  xv)  between  Romans,  which 
he  assigns  to  the  winter  of  a.d.  53-54,  and  Galatians,  which  he  places  towards 
the  end  of  the  latter  year '.  His  chief  argument  is  that  Galatians  represents 
a  more  advanced  and  heated  stage  of  the  controversy  with  the  Judairers,  and 
he  accounts  for  this  by  the  events  which  followed  the  Council  (Gal.  ii.  1 2  ff. ; 
i.  6  ff.)-  There  is,  however,  much  that  is  arbitrary  in  the  whole  of  thii 
reconstruction  ;  and  the  common  view  seems  to  us  far  more  probable  that 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  marks  rather  the  gradual  subsidence  of  troubled 
waters  than  their  first  disturbing.  There  is  more  to  be  said  for  Mr.  Rendall'i 
opinion  that  Galatians  was  written  during  the  early  part  of  St.  Paul's  first 
visit  to  Corinth  in  the  year  51  (or  52).  The  question  is  closely  connected 
with  the  controversy  reopened  by  Professor  Ramsay  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
Galatian  Churches.  For  those  who  see  in  them  the  Churches  of  South 
Galatia  (Antioch  in  Pisidia,  Iconium,  Lystra  and  Derbe)  the  earlier  date 
may  well  seem  preferable.  If  we  take  them  to  be  the  Churches  of  North 
Galatia  (Pessinus,  Ancyra,  and  Taviuro),  then  the  Epistle  cannot  be  earlier 
than  St.  Pauls  settlement  at  Ephesus  on  his  third  journey  in  the  year  54. 
The  argument  which  Bishop  Lightfoot  based  on  resemblances  of  thought  and 
language  between  Galatians  and  Romans  rests  upon  facts  that  are  indisput- 
able, but  does  not  carry  with  it  any  certain  inference  as  to  date. 

(a)  Occasion.  If  the  time  and  place  of  the  Epistle  are  clear, 
the  occasion  of  it  is  still  clearer;  St.  Paul  himself  explains  it 
in  unmistakable  language  twice  over.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
Episile  (Rom.  i.  10-15)  he  tells  the  Romans  how  much  he  has 
longed  to  pay  them  a  visit ;  and  now  that  the  prospect  has  been 
brought  near  he  evidently  writes  to  prepare  them  for  it.  And 
at  the  end  of  the  Epistle  (ch.  xv.  22-33)  ^^  repeats  his  explanation 
detailing  all  his  plans  both  for  the  near  and  for  the  more  distant 
future,  and  telling  them  how  he  hopes  to  make  his  stay  with  thena 
the  most  important  stage  of  his  journey  to  Spain.  We  know  that 
his  intention  was  fulfilled  in  substance  but  not  in  the  manner 
of  its  accomplishment      He   went  up   to  Jerusalem   and   then 

*  Dr.  Clemen  places  St.  Paul's  long  stay  at  Ephesus  (aj  years  on  his  reckon- 
ing) in  50-52  A.D.  In  the  course  of  it  would  fall  our  i  Corinthians  and  two 
out  of  the  three  letters  which  are  supposed  to  be  combined  in  our  2  Corinthians 
(for  this  division  there  is  really  something  of  a  case).  He  then  inserts  a  third 
missionary  journey,  extending  not  over  three  months  (as  Acts  xx.  3),  but 
over  some  two  years  in  Macedonia  and  Greece.  To  this  he  refers  the  last 
Corinthian  letter  (2  Cor.  i-viii)  and  a  genuine  fragment  of  Ep.  to  Titus 
(Tit.  iii  13-14).  Ep.  to  Romans  is  written  from  Corinth  in  the  winter  of 
A.D.  53-54.  Then  follow  the  Council  at  Jerusalem,  the  dispute  at  Antioch, 
Ep.  to  Galatians,  and  a  fourth  journey  m  Asia  Minor,  with  another  genuine 
fragment,  2  Tim.  iv.  19-ai.  This  fills  the  interval  which  ends  with  the  arrest 
at  Jerusalem  in  the  year  58.  Epp.  to  Phil.,  Col.,  Philem.  and  one  or  two  more 
fragments  of  Past.  Epp.,  the  Apostle's  arrival  at  Rome  in  A.D.  61  and  hia 
death  in  A.  D.  64.  The  whole  scheme  stands  or  falls  with  the  place  assigned  to 
the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  estimate  formed  of  the  historical  chaiacteb 
of  the  Acta. 


$  4.]  OCCASION  AND  PURPOSE  xxxix 

to  Rome,  but  only  after  two  yean'  forcible  detention,  and  aa 
a  prisoner  awaiting  his  trial. 

{3)  Purpose.  A  niore  complicated  question  meets  us  wheu 
from  the  occasion  or  proximate  cause  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
we  pass  to  its  purpose  or  ulterior  cause.  The  Apostle's  reasons 
for  writing  to  Rome  lie  upon  the  surface ;  his  reasons  for  writing 
the  particular  letter  he  did  write  will  need  more  consideration. 
No  doubt  there  is  a  providence  in  it.  It  was  willed  that  such 
a  letter  should  be  written  for  the  admonition  of  after-ages.  But 
through  what  psychological  channels  did  that  providence  work  ? 

Here  we  pa?s  on  to  much  debated  ground ;  and  it  will  perhaps 
help  us  if  vv>  begin  by  presenting  the  opposing  theories  in  as 
antithetical  a  form  as  possible. 

When  the  different  views  which  have  been  held  come  to  b« 
examined,  they  will  be  found  to  be  reducible  to  two  main  types, 
which  differ  not  on  a  single  point  but  on  a  number  of  co-ordinated 
points.  ( One  might  be  described  as  primarily  historical,  the  other 
primarily  dogmatic ;  one  directs  attention  mainlyTcTthe  Church 
addressed,' Ihe  oUier-mainly  to  the  writer;  one  adopts  the  view 
of  a  predominance  of  Jewish-Christian  readers,  the  other  pre- 
supposes readers  who  are  predominantly  Gentile  Christians. 

Here  again  the  epoch-making  impulse  came  from  Baur.  It  was 
Baur  who  first  worked  out  a  coherent  theory,  the  essence  of  which 
was  that  it  claimed  to  be  historical.  He  argued  from  the  analogy 
of  the  other  Episdes  which  he  allowed  to  be  genuine.  The  cir- 
cumstances of  the  Corinthian  Church  are  reflected  as  in  a  glass  in 
the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians ;  the  circumstances  of  the  Galatian 
Churches  come  out  clearly  from  that  to  the  Galatians.  Did  it  not 
follow  that  the  circumstances  of  the  Roman  Church  might  be 
directly  inferred  -  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  that  the 
Epistle  itself  was  written  with  deliberate  reference  to  them  ?  Why 
all  this  Jewish-sounding  argument  if  the  readers  were  not  Jews  ? 
Why  these  constant  answers  to  objecdons  if  there  was  no  one  to 
object?  The  issues  discussed  were  similar  in  many  respects  to 
those  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  In  Galatia  a  fierce  con- 
troversy was  going  on.  Must  it  not  therefore  be  assumed  that 
there  was  a  like  controversy,  only  milder  and  more  tempered,  at 
Rome,  and  that  the  Apostle  wished  to  deal  with  it  in  a  manner 
correspondingly  milder  and  more  tempered? 

There  was  truth  in  all  this ;  but  it  was  truth  to  some  extent 
one-sided  and  exaggerated.  A  Uttle  reflexion  will  show  that  the 
cases  of  the  Churches  of  Corinth  and  Galatia  were  not  exactly 
parallel  to  that  of  Rome.  In  Galatia  St.  Paul  was  dealing  with 
a  perfectly  definite  state  of  things  in  a  Church  which  he  himself  had 
founded,  and  the  circumstances  of  which  he  knew  from  within  and 
not  merely  by  hearsay.     At  Corinth  he  had  spent  a  still  longer 


Xl  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  l^  ^ 

time;    when  he  wrote  he  was  not  far  distant;  there  had  been 

frequent  communications  between  the  Church  and  the  Apostle; 
and  in  the  case  of  i  Corinthians  he  had  actually  before  him  a  letter 
containing  a  number  of  questions  which  he  was  requested  to 
answer,  while  in  that  of  a  Corinthians  he  had  a  personal  report 
brought  to  him  by  Titus.  What  could  there  be  like  this  at  Rome  ? 
The  Church  there  St.  Paul  had  not  founded,  had  not  even  seen; 
and,  if  we  are  to  beheve  Baur  and  the  great  majority  of  his  followers, 
he  had  not  even  any  recognizable  correspondents  to  keep  him 
informed  about  it.  For  by  what  may  seem  a  strange  inconsistency 
it  was  especially  the  school  of  Baur  which  denied  the  genuineness 
of  ch.  xvi,  and  so  cut  away  a  whole  Hst  of  persons  from  one  or 
other  of  whom  St.  Paul  might  have  really  learnt  something  about 
Roman  Christianity. 

These  contradictions  were  avoided  in  the  older  theory  which 
prevailed  before  the  time  of  Baur  and  which  has  not  been  without 
adherents,  of  whom  the  most  prominent  perhaps  is  Dr.  Bernhard 
Weiss,  since  his  day.  According  to  this  theory  the  main  object  of 
the  Epistle  is  doctrinal;  it  is  rather  a  theological  treatise  than 
a  letter ;  its  purpose  is  to  instruct  the  Roman  Church  in  central 
principles  of  the  faith,  and  has  but  httle  reference  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  moment 

It  would  be  wrong  to  call  this  view — at  least  in  its  recent  formi 
— unhistorical.  It  takes  account  of  the  situation  as  it  presented 
itself,  but  looks  at  another  side  of  it  from  that  which  caught  the 
eye  of  Baur.  The  leading  idea  is  no  longer  the  position  of  the 
readers,  but  the  position  of  the  writer ;  every  thing  is  made  to  turn 
on  the  truths  which  the  Apostle  wished  to  place  on  record,  and  for 
which  he  found  a  fit  recipient  in  a  Church  which  seemed  to  have  so 
commanding  a  future  before  it 

Let  us  try  to  do  justice  to  the  different  aspects  of  the  problem. 
The  theories  which  have  so  far  been  mentioned,  and  others  <^ 
which  we  have  not  yet  spoken,  are  only  at  fault  in  so  far  as  they 
are  exclusive  and  emphasize  some  one  point  to  the  neglect  of  the 
rest.  Nature  is  usually  more  subtle  than  art.  A  man  of  St.  Paul's 
ability  sitting  down  to  write  a  letter  on  matters  of  weight  would  be 
likely  to  have  several  influences  present  to  his  mind  at  once,  and 
his  language  would  be  moulded  now  by  one  and  now  by  another. 

Three  factors  may  be  said  to  have  gone  to  *ihe  shaping  of  this 
letter  of  St.  Paul's. 

The  first  of  these  will  be  that  which  Baur  took  almost  for  the 
only  one.  The  Apostle  had  soipe-  re^^ljtnowledgf;  of  the^ state,  of 
tbfcChurchto  which  he  was  writing.  Here  we  see  the  importance 
of  his  connexion  with  Aquila  and  Prisca.  His  intercourse  with 
them  would  probably  give  the  first  impulse  to  that  wish  which  he 
tells  OS  that  he  had  entertained  for  many  years  to  visit  Rome  ia 


^  4.]  OCCASION  AND  PURPOSE  xli 

persoa  When  first  he  met  them  at  Corinth  they  were  newly 
arrived  from  the  capital ;  he  would  hear  from  them  of  the  state  of 
things  they  left  behind  them;  and  a  spark  would  be  enough  to 
fire  his  imagination  at  the  prospect  of  winning  a  foothold  for  Christ 
and  the  Gospel  in  the  seat  of  empire  itself.  We  may  well 
believe — if  the  speculations  about  Prisca  are  valid,  and  even  with- 
out drawing  upon  these — that  the  two  wanderers  would  keep  up 
communication  with  the  Christians  of  their  home.  And  now,  very 
probably  at  the  instance  of  the  Apostle,  they  had  returned  to 
prepare  the  way  for  his  coming.  We  cannot  afford  to  lose  so 
valuable  a  link  between  St.  Paul  and  the  Church  he  had  set  his 
heart  on  visiting.  Two  of  his  most  trusted  friends  are  now  on  the 
spot,  and  they  would  not  fail  to  report  all  that  it  was  essential  to 
the  Apostle  to  know.  He  may  have  had  other  correspondents 
besides,  but  they  would  be  the  chief.  To  this  source  we  may  look 
for  what  there  is  of  local  colour  in  the  Epistle.  If  the  argument  is 
addressed  now  to  Gentiles  by  birth  and  now  to  Jews ;  if  we  catch 
a  glimpse  of  parties  in  the  Church,  '  the  strong '  and  '  the  weak' ; 
if  there  is  a  hint  of  danger  threatening  the  peace  and  the  faith  of 
the  community  (as  in  ch.  xvi.  17-^20) — ij|_isJiQm-bie-fnends  -4n~ 
Rome  that  the  ApoHtle  draws-lM&^knnwlpdgf  nf  the  rnnditinns  with 
wfiichhe  is  dealmg^ 
j^L,  The  second  factor  which  helps  in  determining  the  character  of 
the  Epistle  has  more  to  do  with  what  it  is  not  than  with  what  it  is : 
it  prevents  it  from  being  as  it  was  at  one  time  described,  '  a  com- 
pendium of  the  whole  of  Christian  doctrine.'  The  Epistle  is  not 
this,  because  like  all  St.  Paul's  Epistles  it  implies  a  common  basis 
of  Christian  teaching,  those  TTapaSoa-fis  as  they  are  called  elsewhere 
(i  Cor.  xi.  a ;  a  Thess.  ii.  15;  iii.  6),  which  the  Apostle  is  able  to 
take  for  granted  as  already  known  to  his  readers,  and  which  he 
therefore  thinks  it  unnecessary  to  repeat  without  special  reason. 
ge  will  not  ^lay  again'  a  foundation  which  is  already  laid.  He 
will  not  speak  of  the  '  first  principles'  of  a  Christian's  belief,  but 
will  '  go  on  unto  perfection.'  Hence  it  is  that  just  the  most  fundaX 
mental  doctrines — the  Divine  Lordship  of  Christ,  the  value  of  His  j 
Death,  the  nature  of  the  Sacraments — are  assumed  rather  than  I 
stated  or  proved.  Such  allusions  as  we  get  to  these  are  concerned/ 
not  with  the  rudimentary  but  with  the  more  developed  forms  of  the 
doctrines  in  question.  They  nearly  always  add  someihing  to  the 
common  stock  of  teaching,  give  to  it  a  profounder  significance, 
or  apply  it  in  new  and  unforeseen  directions.  The  last  charge 
that  could  be  brought  against  the  Epistle  would  be  that  it  consisted 
of  Christian  commonplaces.  It  is  one  of  the  most  original  of 
writings.  No  Christian  can  have  read  it  for  the  first  time  without 
feeling  that  he  was  introduced  to  heights  and  depths  of  ChrisLianiti? 
of  which  he  had  never  been  conscious  before. 


Xlii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  4 

For,  lastly,  the  most  powerful  <rf  all  the  influences  which  hava 
shaped  the  contents  ot  tne  i^pTstle  is  the  expeneni^  oQhejyxiter. 
The  main  object  which  he  has  in  view  is  really  not  far  to  seek. 
When  he  thought  of  visiting  Rome  his  desire  was  to  '  have  some 
fruit '  there,  fts  in  the  rest  of  the  Gentile  world  (Rom.  i.  13).  He 
longed  to  impart  to  the  Roman  Christians  some  '  spirituaLgift,' 
such  as  he  knew  that  he  had  the  power  of  imparting^TT"!  i  fxv. 
19).  By  this  he  meant  the  effect  of  his  own  personal  presence, 
but  the  gift  was  one  that  could  be  exercised  also  in  absence.  He 
has  exercised  it  by  this  letter,  which  is  itself  the  outcome  of  a 
nvfyy^ceriKov  xapKr^a,  a  word  of  instruction,  stimulus,  and  warning, 
addressed  in  the  first  instance  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  and  through 
it  to  Christendom  for  all  time. 

The  Apostle  has  reached  another  turning-point  in  his  career. 
He  is  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  not  knowing  what  will  befall  him 
there,  but  prepared  for  the  worst.  He  is  aware  that  the  step  which 
he  is  taking  is  highly  critical  and  he  has  no  confidence  that  he_will 
escape  with  his  life  \  This  gives  an  added  solemnity  to  his  utter- 
ance ;  and  it  is  natural  that  he  should  cast  back  his  glance  over 
the  years  which  had  passed  since  he  became  a  Christian  and  sum 
up  the  result  as  he  felt  it  for  himself.  It  is  not  exactly  a  conscious 
summing  up,  but  it  is  the  momentum  of  this  past  experience  which 
guides  his  pen. 
'  r  Deep  in  the  background  of  all  his  thought  lies  that  one  great 
^  event  which  brought  him  within  the  fold  of  Christ.  For  him  it 
'  had  been  nothing  less  than  a  revolution  ;  and  it  fixed  permanently 
'  his  conception  of  the  new  forces  which  came  with  Christianity  into 
^  the  world.  '  To  believe  in  Christ,'  *  to  be  baptized  into  Christ,' 
a  ^  these  were  the  watchwords ;  and  the  Apostle  felt  that  they  were 
pregnant  with  intense  meaning.  That  new  personal  relation  of 
the  believer  to  his  Lord  was  henceforth  the  motive-power  which 
dominated  the  whole  of  his  life.  It  was  also  met,  as  it  seemed,  in  a 
marvellous  manner  from  above.  We  cannot  doubt  that  from  his  con- 
version onwards  St.  Paul  found  himself  endowed  with  extraordinary 
energies.  Some  of  them  were  what  we  should  call  miraculous; 
but  he  makes  no  distinction  between  those  which  were  miraculous 
and  those  which  were  not.  He  set  them  all  down  as  miraculous 
in  the  sense  of  having  a  direct  Divine  cause.  And  when  he  looked 
around  him  over  the  Christian  Church  he  saw  that  like  endowments, 
energies  vSimilar  in  kind  if  inferior  to  his  own  in  degree,  were 
widely  diflfhsed.  They  were  the  characteristic  mark  of  Christians. 
Partly  they  took  a  form  which  would  be  commonly  described  as 
supernatural,  unusual  powers  of  healing,  unusual  gifts  of  utterance, 
an  unusual  magnetic  influence  upon  others ;  partly  they  consisted 

'  This  ia  impreuiTcly  sUted  in  Hort,  X^m.  mnd  Bpk  p.  4a  ff. 


§4.]  OCCASION  AND  PURPOSE  xlifi 

in  a  strange  elation  of  spirit  which  made  suffering  and  toil  seem 
lignt  and  insignificant ;  but  most  of  all  the  new  impulse  was  moral 
in  its  working,  it  blossomed  out  in  a  multitude  of  attractive  traits — 
'  love,  joy,  peace,  longsuffering,  kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness, 
meekness,  temperance.'  These  St.  Paul  called  *  fruits  of  the 
Spirit.'  The  act  of  faith  on  the  part  of  man,  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  (which  was  only  another  way  of  describing  the  influence  of 
Christ  Himself  ^)  from  the  side  of  God,  were  the  two  outstanding 
facts  which  made  the  lives  of  Christians  diff'er  from  those  of  other 
men. 

These  are  the  postulates  of  Christianity,  the  forces  to  which  the 
Apostle  has  to  appeal  for  the  solution  of  practical  problems  as  they 
present  themselves.  His  time  had  been  very  largely  taken  up 
with  such  problems.  There  had  been  the  great  question  as  to 
the  terms  on  which  Gentiles  were  to  be  admitted  to  the  new  society. 
On  this  head  St.  Paul  could  have  no  doubt.  His  own  ruling 
principles,  '  faith '  and  '  the  Spirit,'  made  no  distinction  between 
Jew  and  Gentile;  he  had  no  choice  but  to  contend  fnr  the  equal 
rights  of  both — a  certain  precedence  might  be  yielded  to  the  Jews 
as  the  chosen  people  of  the  Old  Covenant,  but  that  was  all. 

This  battle  had  been  fought  and  won.  But  it  left  behind 
a  question  which  was  intellectually  more  troublesome — a  question 
brought  home  by  the  actual  eff"ect  of  the  preaching  of  Christianity, 
very  largely  welcomed  and  eagerly  embraced  by  Gentiles,  but  as 
a  rule  spurned  and  rejected  by  the  Jews — how  it  could  be  that 
Israel,  the  chosen  recipient  of  the  promises  of  the  Old  Testament, 
should  be  excluded  from  the  benefit  now  that  those  promises  came 
to  be  fulfilled.  Clearly  this  question  belongs  to  the  later  reflective 
stage  of  the  controversy  relating  to  Jew  and  Gentile.  The  active 
contending  for  Gentile  liberties  would  come  first,  the  philosophic 
or  theological  assignment  of  the  due  place  of  Jew  and  Gentile  in 
the  Divine  scheme  would  naturally  come  afterwards.  This  more 
advanced  stage  has  now  been  reached  ;  the  Apostle  has  made  up 
his  mind  on  the  whole  series  of  questions  at  issue ;  and  he  takes 
the  opportunity  of  writing  to  the  Romans  at  the  very  centre  of  the 
empire,  to  lay  down  calmly  and  deliberately  the  conclusions  to 
which  he  has  come. 

The  Epistle  is  the  ripened  fruit  of  the  thought  and  struggles  of 
the  eventful  years  by  which  it  had  been  preceded.  It  is  no  merely 
abstract  disquisition  but  a  letter  full  of  direct  human  interest  in  the 
persons  to  whom  it  is  written ;  it  is  a  letter  which  contains  here 
and  there  side-glances  at  pardcular  local  circumstances,  and  at 
least  one  emphatic  warning  (ch.  xvi.  17-20)  against  a  dangei 
which  had  not  reached  the  Church  as  yet,  but  any  day  might  reach 

*  8ae  the  notef  ob  ch.  TiiL  9-17 ;  compaie  also  ch.  vi.  i-i^ 


Xliv  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  R  4. 

it,  and  the  full  urgency  of  which  the  Apostle  knew  only  too  well  j 

but  the  main  theme  of  the  letter  is  the  gathering  in  of  the  harvest, 
at  once  of  the  Church's  history  since  the  departure  of  its  Master, 
and  of  the  individual  history  of  a  single  soul,  that  one  soul  which 
under  God  had  had  the  most  active  share  in  making  the  course  of 
external  events  what  it  was.  St.  Paul  set  himself  to  give  the 
Roman  Church  of  his  best ;  he  has  given  it  what  was  perhaps  in 
some  ways  too  good  for  it— more  we  may  be  sure  than  it  would  be 
able  to  digest  and  assimilate  at  the  moment,  but  just  for  that  very 
reason  a  body  of  teaching  which  eighteen  centuries  of  Christian 
interpreters  have  failed  to  exhaust.  Its  richness  in  this  respect  is 
due  to  the  incomparable  hold  which  it  shows  on  the  essential 
principles  of  Christ's  religion,  and  the  way  in  which,  like  the 
Bible  in  general,  it  pierces  through  the  conditions  of  a  particular 
time  and  place  to  the  roots  of  things  which  are  permanent  and 
universal 


§  5.  The  Argument. 

In  the  interestmg  essay  in  which,  discarding  all  tradition,  he 
seeks  to  re-interpret  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  directly  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  nineteenth  century,  Matthew  Arnold  maps  out  the 
contents  of  the  Epistle  as  follows : — 

'  If  a  somewhat  pedantic  form  of  expression  may  be  forgiven  for 
the  sake  of  clearness,  we  may  say  that  of  the  eleven  first  chapters 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans — the  chapters  which  convey  Paul's 
theology,  though  not  .  .  .  with  any  scholastic  purpose  or  in  any 
formal  scientific  mode  of  exposition — of  these  eleven  chapters,  the 
first,  second,  and  third  are,  in  a  scale  of  importance,  fixed  by 
a  scientific  criticism  of  Paul's  line  of  thought,  sub-primary;  the 
fourth  and  fifth  are  secondary;  the  sixth  and  eighth  are  primary; 
the  seventh  chapter  is  sub-primary ;  the  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh 
chapters  are  secondary.  Furthermore,  to  the  contents  of  the 
separate  chapters  themselves  this  scale  must  be  carried  on,  so  far  as 
to  mark  that  of  the  two  great  primary  chapters,  the  sixth  and 
eighth,  the  eighth  is  primary  down  only  to  the  end  of  the  twenty- 
eighth  verse  ;  from  thence  to  the  end  it  is,  however,  eloquent,  yet 
for  the  purpose  of  a  scientific  criticism  of  Paul's  essential  theology 
only  secondary'  (6V.  Paul  and  Protestantism,  p.  92  f). 

This  extract  may  serve  as  a  convenient  starting-point  for  our 
exaniinaiion  of  the  argument :  and  it  may  conduce  to  clearness  ol 
apprehension  if  we  complete  the  summary  analysis  of  the  Epistle 
given  by  the  same  writer,  with  the  additional  advantage  of  presenting 
it  in  his  fresh  and  bright  manner : — 


f  6.]  THE  ARGUMENT  XIV 

'  The  first  chapter  is  to  the  Gentiles — its  purport  b ;  Yon  have 
not  righteousness.  The  second  is  to  the  Jews — its  purport 
is :  No  more  have  you,  though  you  think  you  have.  The  third 
chapter  assumes  faith  in  Christ  as  the  one  source  of  right- 
eousness for  all  men.  The  fourth  chapter  gives  to  the  notion 
of  righteousness  through  faith  the  sanction  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  of  the  history  of  Abraham.  The  fifth  insists  on  the  causes  for 
thankfulness  and  exultation  in  the  boon  of  righteousness  through 
feith  in  Christ;  and  applies  illustratively,  with  this  design,  the 
history  of  Adam.  The  sixth  chapter  comes  to  the  all-important 
question :  **  What  is  that  faith  in  Christ  which  I,  Paul,  mean  ? " — 
and  answers  it.  The  seventh  illustrates  and  explains  the  answer. 
But  the  eighth  down  to  the  end  of  the  twenty- eighth  verse,  develops 
and  completes  the  answer.  The  rest  of  the  eighth  chapter  expresses 
the  sense  of  safety  and  gratitude  which  the  solution  is  fitted  to 
inspire.  The  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  chapters  uphold  the  second 
chapter's  thesis — so  hard  to  a  Jew,  so  easy  to  us— that  righteous- 
ness is  not  by  the  Jewish  law ;  but  dwell  with  hope  and  joy  on  a 
final  result  of  things  which  is  to  be  favourable  to  Israel'  {ibid.  p.  93). 

Some  such  outline  as  this  would  be  at  the  present  stage  of  in- 
vestigation generally  accepted.  It  is  true  that  Baur  threw  the 
centre  of  gravity  upon  chapters  ix-xi,  and  held  that  the  rest  of  the 
Epistle  was  written  up  to  these :  but  this  view  would  now  on 
almost  all  hands  be  regarded  as  untenable.  The  problem  discussed 
in  these  chapters  doubtless  weighed  heavily  on  the  Apostle's  mind ; 
in  the  circumstances  under  which  he  was  writing  it  was  doubtless 
a  problem  of  very  considerable  urgency ;  but  for  all  that  it  is 
a  problem  which  belongs  rather  to  the  circumference  of  St.  Paul's 
thought  than  to  the  centre ;  it  is  not  so  much  a  part  of  his  funda- 
mental teaching  as  a  consequence  arising  from  its  collision  with  an 
unbelieving  world. 

On  this  head  the  scholarship  of  the  present  day  would  be  on  the 
side  of  Matthew  Arnold.  It  points,  however,  to  the  necessity,  in 
any  attempt  to  determine  what  is  primary  and  what  is  not  primary 
in  the  argument  of  the  Epistle,  of  starting  with  a  clear  understanding 
of  the  point  of  view  from  which  the  degrees  of  relative  importance 
are  to  be  assigned.  Baur's  object  was  historical— to  set  the 
Epistle  in  relation  to  the  circumstances  of  its  composition.  On 
that  assumption  his  view  was  partially — though  still  not  more  than 
partially — justified.  Matthew  Arnold's  object  on  the  other  hand 
was  what  he  calls  '  a  scientific  criticism  of  Paul's  thought ' ;  by 
which  he  seems  to  mean  (though  perhaps  he  was  not  wholly  clear 
in  his  own  mind)  an  attempt  to  discriminate  in  it  those  elements 
which  are  of  the  highest  permanent  value.  It  was  natural  that  he 
should  attach  the  greatest  importance  to  those  elements  in  particular 
which  seemed  to  be  capable  ot  direct  personal  verification.    From 


xlvl  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§9. 

this  point  of  view  we  need  not  question  his  assignment  of  a  primary 
significance  to  chapters  vi  and  viii.  His  reproduction  of  the  thought 
of  these  chapters  is  the  best  thing  in  his  book,  and  we  have  drawn 
upon  it  ourselves  in  the  commentary  upon  them  (p.  163  f.).  There 
is  more  in  the  same  connexion  that  well  deserves  attentive  study. 
But  there  are  other  portions  of  the  Epistle  which  are  not  capable  of 
verification  precisely  in  the  same  manner,  and  yet  were  of  primary 
importance  to  St.  Paul  himself  and  may  be  equally  of  primary 
importance  to  those  of  us  who  are  willing  to  accept  his  testimony 
in  spiritual  things  which  He  beyond  the  reach  of  our  personal 
v^xperience.  Matthew  Arnold  is  limited  by  the  method  which  he 
applies — and  which  others  would  no  doubt  join  with  him  in 
applying — to  the  subjective  side  of  Christianity,  the  emotions  and 
eflorts  which  it  generates  in  Christians.  But  there  is  a  further 
question  how  and  why  they  came  to  be  generated.  And  in  the 
answer  which  St.  Paul  would  give,  and  which  the  main  body  of 
Christians  very  largely  on  his  authority  would  also  give  to  that 
question,  he  and  they  alike  are  led  up  into  regions  where  direct 
human  verification  ceases  to  be  possible. 

It  is  quite  true  that  '  faith  in  Christ '  means  attachment  to  Christ, 
a  strong  emotion  of  love  and  gratitude.  But  that  emotion  is  not 
confined,  as  we  say,  to  '  the  historical  Christ,'  it  has  for  its  object 
not  only  Him  who  walked  the  earth  as  'Jesus  of  Nazareth';  it  is 
directed  towards  the  same  Jesus  '  crucified,  risen  and  ascended  to 
the  right  hand  of  God.'  St.  Paul  believed,  and  we  also  believe, 
that  His  transit  across  the  stage  of  our  earth  was  accompanied  by 
consequences  in  the  celestial  sphere  which  transcend  our  faculties. 
We  cannot  pretend  to  be  able  to  verify  them  as  we  can  verify  that 
which  passes  in  our  own  minds.  And  yet  a  certain  kind  of  indirect 
verification  there  is.  The  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of 
Christians  who  have  lived  and  died  in  the  firm  conviction  of  the 
truth  of  these  supersensual  reaHties,  and  who  upon  the  strength  of 
them  liave  reduced  their  lives  to  a  harmonious  unity  superseding 
the  war  of  passion,  do  really  afford  no  slight  presumption  that  the 
beliefs  which  have  enabled  theni  to  do  this  are  such  as  the  Ruler  of 
the  universe  apjiroves,  and  such  as  aptly  fit  into  the  eternal  order. 
Whatever  the  force  of  this  presumption  to  the  outer  world,  it  ia  one 
which  the  Christian  at  least  will  cherish. 

We  therefore  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  treat  as  anything  less  than 
primary  that  which  was  certainly  primary  to  St.  Paul.  We  entirely 
accept  the  view  that  chapters  vi  and  viii  are  primary,  but  we  also 
feel  bound  to  place  by  their  side  the  culminating  verses  of  chapter 
iii.  The  really  fundamental  passages  in  the  Epistle  we  should  say 
were,  ch.i.  16, 17,  which  states  the  problem,  and  iii.  ai-26,  vi.  1-14, 
viii.  1-30  (rather  than  1-28),  which  supply  its  solution.  The 
problem  is,  How  is  man  to  become  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God } 


§  ft.]  THE  ARGUMENl  xlvii 

And  the  answer  is  (i)  by  certain  great  redemptive  acts  on  the 
part  of  God  which  take  effect  in  the  sphere  above,  though  their 
consequences  are  felt  throughout  the  sphere  below;  (a)  through 
a  certain  ardent  apprehension  of  these  acts  and  of  their  Author 
Christ,  on  the  part  of  the  Christian;  and  (3)  through  his  con- 
tinued self-surrender  to  Divine  influences  poured  out  freely  and 
unremittingly  upon  him. 

It  is  superfluous  to  say  that  there  is  nothing  whatever  that  is  new 
in  this  statement.  It  does  but  reproduce  the  belief,  in  part  implicit 
rather  than  explicit,  of  the  Early  Church  ;  then  further  defined  and 
emphasized  more  vigorously  on  some  of  its  sides  at  the  Reformation ; 
and  lastly  brought  to  a  more  even  balance  (or  what  many  would 
fain  make  a  more  even  balance)  by  the  Church  of  our  own  day.  Of 
course  it  is  liable  to  be  impugned,  as  it  is  impugned  by  the 
attractive  writer  whose  words  have  been  quoted  above,  in  the 
interest  of  what  is  thought  to  be  a  stricter  science.  But  whatever 
the  value  in  itself  of  the  theory  which  is  substituted  for  it,  we  may 
be  sure  that  it  does  not  adequately  represent  the  mind  of  St.  Paul. 
In  the  present  commentary  our  first  object  is  to  do  justice  to  this. 
How  it  is  afterwards  to  be  worked  up  into  a  complete  scheme  of 
religious  behef,  it  lies  beyond  our  scope  to  consider. 

For  the  sake  of  the  student  it  may  be  well  to  draw  out  the 
contents  of  the  Epistle  in  a  tabular  analytical  form.  St.  Paul,  as 
Matthew  Arnold  rightly  reminds  us,  is  no  Schoolman,  and  his 
method  is  the  very  reverse  of  all  that  is  formal  and  artificial.  But 
it  is  undoubtedly  helpful  to  set  before  ourselves  the  framework  of 
his  thought,  just  as  a  knowledge  of  anatomy  conduces  to  the  better 
understanding  of  the  living  human  frame. 

L — Introduotion  (i.  1-15). 

a.  The  Apostolic  Salutation  (i.  1-7). 

0.  St.  Paul  and  the  Roman  Church  (i.  8-15). 

n. — Doctrinal. 

The  Great  Thesis.  Problem :  How  is  Righteonsness  to  be  attained? 
Answer :  Not  by  man's  work,  but  by  God's  gift,  through  Faith,  or 
loyal  attachment  to  Christ  (i.  16,  17). 

A.  R%hteoasness  as  a  state  or  condition  in  the  sight  of  God  (Justification) 
(I  18-V.  3l). 
I.  Righteonsness  not  hitherto  attained  (i.  i8-iii.  ao). 

[Rather,  by  contrast,  a  scene  which  bespeaks  impending  Wrath]. 
m.  Failure  of  the  Gentile  (i.  18-33). 
(L)  Natural  Religion  (L  i8-ao)  ; 
(iL)  deserted  for  idolatry  (i.  21-25)  J 

(iiL)  hence  judicial  abandonment  to  abominable  sins  (26,  37),  to 
every  kind  of  moral  depravity  (28-31),  even  to  perversion  of 
conscience  (3a). 
B,  [Transitional].   Future  judgement  without  respect  of  penoas  sncfa  M 
Jew  ot  Gentile  (ii.  1-16). 


idviii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [$  & 

(L)  Jewish  critic  and  Gentile  tinner  in  the  same  position  (11.  1-4). 
(li)  Standard  of  judgement :  deeds,  not  privileges  (ii.  5-11). 
(ill.)  Rule  of  judgement :   Law  of  Moses  for  the  Jew ;  Law  of  Co» 
science  for  the  Gentile  (ii.  ia-i6). 
J.  Failure  of  the  Jew  (ii.  17-39).    Profession  and  reality,  as  regard* 
(1.)  Law(ii.  17-34); 
(ii.)  Circumcision  (ii.  25-39). 
IL  [Parenthetic].    Answer  to  casnistical  objections  from  Jewish  stand- 
point (iii.  1-8). 
^)    The    Jew's    advantage   •■    recipient    of    Divbie    Promises 

(iii.  1,3); 
(Ii.)  which  promises  are  not  invalidated  by  Man's  onfaithfnlnew 

(iii-  3,  4)- 
(iii.)  Yet  God's  greater  glory  no  excuse  for  human  sin  (iiL  5-8). 
«.  Universal  failure  to   attain  to  righteousness  and  earn  acceptance 

illustrated  from  Scripture  (iii.  9-30). 
t.  Consequent  Exposition  of  New  System  (iii.  ai-31)  : 
4k   (i.)  in  its  relation  to  Law,  independent  of  it,  yet  attested  hf  k 
("); 
rti)  in  its  universality,  as  the  free  gift  of  God  (31-34)  » 
(iii.)  in  the  method  of  its  realization  through  the  propitiatory  Death 
of  Christ,  which  occupies  under  the  New  Dispensation  the 
■ame  place  which  Sacrifice,  especially  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Day  of  Atonement,  occupied  under  the  Old  (25) ; 
(hr.)  in  its  final  cause — the  twofold  manifestation  of  God's  righteona- 
ness,  at  once  asserting  itself  against  sin  and  conveying  pardon 
to  the  sinner  (36). 
$.  Preliminary  note  of  two  main  consequences  from  this : 
(i.)  Boasting  excluded  (37,  38) ; 
(ii.)  Jew  and  Gentile  aUke  accepted  (29-31). 

^  Relation  of  this  New  System  to  O.  T.  considered  fai  refeienoe  to  the 

crucial  case  of  Abraham  (iv.  1-35). 
(i.)  Abraham's  acceptance  (lilce  that  described  by  David)  tamed 

on  Faith,  not  Works  (iv.  1-8)  ; 
QL)  nor  Circumcision  (iv.  9-13) 

[to  that  there  might  be  nothing  to  prevent  him   from 
being  the  spiritual  father  of  uncircumcised  as  well  •■ 
circumcised  (11,  13)], 
(UL)  nor  Law,  the  antithesis  of  Promise  (iv.  13-17) 

[so  that  he  might  be  the  spiritual  father  of  mil  belieren, 
not  of  those  under  the  Law  only]. 
(ir.)  Abraham's  Faith,  a  type  of  the  Christian's  (iv.  17-35)  : 
[he  too  believed  in  a  birth  from  the  dead]. 

^  Blissfril  effects  of  Righteousness  by  Faith  (v.  i-si). 
m.   (L)  It  leads  by  sure  degrees  to  a  triumphant  hope  of  final  ■>!• 
vation  (v.  1-4). 
(ii.)  That  hope  guaranteed  a  fortiori  by  the  Love  displayed  ia 
Christ's  Death  for  sinners  (v.  5-11). 
A  Contrast  of  these  effects  with  those  of  Adam's  Fall  (v.  ia-3i)  t 
(i.)  like,  in  the  transition  from  one  to  all  (13-14); 
(ii.)  unlike,  in  that  where  one  brought  sin,  condemnation,  death,  the 
other  brought  grace,  a  declaration  of  unmerited  righteoua- 
ness,  life  (15-17). 
^)  Summary.     Relations  of  Fall.  Law,  Grace  (18-31) 

[The  Fall  brought  sin;  Law  increased  it;  bat  Graoc  men 
than  cancels  die  ill  effects  of  Law]. 


{  •.]  THE  ARGUMENT  Xlix 

B.  ProgiMslTe  Righteontnets  in  the  Christian  (SanctificatioD)  (vi-viii). 

I.  Reply  to  farther  casuistical  objection :    '  If  more  sin   means  more 
frace,  why  not  go  on  sinning?' 
The  immersion  of  Baptism  carried  with  it  a  death  to  sin. 
and  onion  with  the  risen  Christ.     The  Christian  there- 
fore cannot,  mast  not,  sin  (vi.  1-14). 
ft.  Tke  Christian's  Release :   what  it  ii,  and  what  it  is  not :  shown  by 

two  metaphors. 
■.  Servitude  and  emancipation  (vi.  i5-a3). 
A>  The  marriage-bond  (vii.  1-6). 

[The  Christian's  old  self  dead  to  the  Law  with  Christ;  ao  that 
he  is  henceforth  free  to  live  with  Him]. 
^  Judftistic  objection  from  seeming  disparagement  of  Law  :  met  by  an 
analysis  of  the  moral  conflict  in  the  soul.     Law  is  impotent, 
and  gives  an  impulse  or  handle  to  sin,  but  is  not  itself  sinful 
(vii.   7-34).     The  conflict  ended  by   the  interposition   of 
Christ  (as). 
4.  Fenpective  of  the  Christian's  New  Career  (viii). 
The  Indwelling  Spirit, 
a.  Failure  of  the  previous  system  made  good  by  Christ's  Incanution 

and  the  Spirit's  presence  (viii.  1-4). 
fi.  The  new  vgime  contrasted  with  the  old — the  regime  of  the  Spirit 

with  the  weakness  of  unassisted  humanity  (viii.  5-9). 
•fk  The  Spirit's  presence  a  guarantee   of  bodily  as   well  as  moral 

resurrection  (viii.  10-13); 
&  also  a  guarantee  that  the  Christian  enjoys  with  God  a  son's  relation, 

and  will  enter  upon  a  son's  inheritance  (viii.  14-17). 
4.  That  glorious  inheritance  the  object  of  creation's  yearning  (viii. 
18-32); 
and  of  the  Christian's  hope  (viii.  13-35). 
f .  Human  infirmity  assisted  by  the  Spirit's  intercession  (viii.  a6,  if) ; 
$.  and  sustained  by  the  knowledge  of  the  connected  chain  by  which 

God  works  out  His  purpose  of  salvation  (viii.  28-30). 
1.    Inviolable  security  of  the   Christian  in  dependence  upon   God's 
favour  and  the  love  of  Christ  (viii.  31-39). 

C.  Problem  of  Israel's  Unbelief.     The  Gospel  in  history  (ix,  x,  xi).     The 

rejection  of  the  Chosen  People  a  sad  contrast  to  its  high  destiny  and 
privileges  (ix.  1-5). 
I.  Justice  of  the  Rejection  (ix.  6-39). 
«.  The  Rejection  of  Israel  not  inconsistent  with  the  Divine  promlsea 

(ix.  6-13); 
$.  mot  with  the  Divine  Justice  (ix.  14-39). 

(L)  The  absoluteness  of  God's  dioice  shown  from  the  O.  T.  (ix, 

14-18). 
(U.)  A   necessary  dedaction  from    His  position  as  Creator   (ix. 

19-23)- 
(iiL)  The  alternate  choice  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  expressly  reserved 
and  foretold  in  Scripture  (ix.  24-29). 
ft.  Canae  of  the  Rejection. 

«.  Israel  sought  righteousness  by  Works  instead  of  Faith,  in  their  owa 
way  and  not  in  God's  way  (ixl  30-x.  4). 
And  this  although  God's  method  was — 
(i.)  Not  difl&cult  and  remote  but  near  and  easy  (x.  5-10) ; 
(ii.)  Within  the  reach  of  all,  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  (x.  11-13). 
$,  Nor  can  Israel  plead  in  defence  want  of  opporttmity  or  wamhig — 
(i.)  The  Gospel  has  heai  fully  and  universally  preached  (x.  I4>i8) 


I  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  6 

(tt.)  Israel  had  been  warned  beforehand  by  the  Prophet  that  the; 

would  reject  God's  Message  (x.  iq-ji). 
p  Mitigating  cousiderationg.     The  purpose  of  God  (xi). 
«.  The  Unbelif'f  of  Israel  is  now  as  in  the  past  only  partial  (id.  l-io). 
fi.  It  is  only  temporary — 

(L)  Their  fall   has  a   special   purpose — the  introdnctioD   of  the 

Gentiles  (xi.  11-15). 
(H.)  That  Israel  will  be  restored  is  vouched  for  by  the  holy  stock 
from  which  it  comes  (xi.  16-34). 
y.  lo   all    this  may  be  seen  the  purpose  of  God  working   upwards 
through  seeming  severity,   to  a  beneficent  result  —  the  final 
restoration  of  all  (xi.  aj-Ji). 
Doxology  (xi.  33-36). 
in. — Practical  and  Hortatory. 

(i)  The  Christian  sacrifice  (xii.  i,  »). 

(a)  The  Christian  as  a  member  of  the  Church  (xii.  3-4)> 

(3)  The  Christian  in  his  relation  to  others  (xii.  9->i). 
The  Christian's  vengeance  (xii.  19-31). 

(4)  Church  and  State  (xiii.  1-7). 

(5)  The  Christian's  one  debt ;  the  law  of  love  (xiii.  S-IO). 
The  day  approaching  (xiii   11 -14). 

(6)  Toleration ;  the  strong  and  the  weak  (xiv.  i-xv.  6), 
The  Jew  and  the  Gentile  (xv.  7-13). 

IV, — Epilogue. 

a.  Personal  explanations.     Motive  of  the  Epistle.     PropOMd  visit  ta 

Rome  (xv.  14-33). 
0.  Greetings  to  various  persons  (xvL  1-16). 
A  warning  (xvi.  17-30). 
Postscript   by  the  Apostle's  companions  and  amancfniii  (xvL 

ai-a.^). 
Benediction  and  Doxology  (xvL  i^aj). 

It  is  often  easiest  to  bring  out  the  force  and  strength  of  an 
argument  by  starting  from  its  conclusion,  and  we  possess  in  the 
doxology  at  the  end  of  the  Epistle  a  short  summary  made  by 
St.  Paul  himself  of  its  contents.  The  question  of  its  genuineness 
has  been  discussed  elsewhere,  and  it  has  been  shown  in  the 
commentary  how  clearly  it  refers  to  all  the  leading  thoughts  of  the 
Epistle ;  it  remains  only  to  make  use  of  it  to  help  us  to  understand 
the  argument  which  St.  Paul  is  working  out  and  the  conclusion  to 
which  he  is  leading  us. 

The  first  idea  which  comes  prominently  before  us  is  that  of  *  the 
Gospel' ;  it  meets  us  in  the  Apostolic  salutation  at  the  beginning, 
in  the  statement  of  the  thesis  of  the  Epistle,  in  the  doxology  at  the 
end  where  it  is  expanded  in  the  somewhat  unusual  form  '  according 
to  my  Gospel  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ.'  So  again  in 
xi.  28  it  is  incidentally  shown  that  what  St.  Paul  is  describing  is  the 
method  or  plan  of  the  Gospel.  This  idea  of  the  Gospel  then  is 
a  fundamental  thought  of  the  Epistle  ;  and  it  seems  to  mean  this. 
There  are  two  competing  systems  or  plans  of  life  or  salvation 
before  St.  Paul's  mind.  The  one  is  the  old  Jewish  system,  a  know- 
ledge of  which  is  presupposed ;  the  other  is  the  Christian  tystem, 


§6.]  THE  ARGUMENT  U 

«  knowledge  of  which  again  is  presupposed.     St.  Paul  is  not 

expounding  the  Christian  religion,  he  is  writing  to  Christians ; 
what  he  aims  at  expounding  is  the  meaning  of  the  new  system. 
This  may  perhaps  explain  the  manner  in  which  he  varies  between 
the  expressions  '  the  Gospel,'  or '  the  Gospel  of  God,'  or  '  the  Gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ/  and  '  my  Gospel.'  The  former  represents  the 
Christian  religion  as  recognized  and  preached  by  all,  the  latter 
represents  his  own  personal  exposition  of  its  plan  and  meaning. 
The  main  purpose  of  the  argument  then  is  an  explanation  of  the 
meaning  of  the  new  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  succeeding  to  and 
taking  the  place  of  the  old  method,  but  also  in  a  sense  as  embracing 
and  continuing  it. 

St.  Paul  begins  then  with  a  theological  description  of  the  new 
method.  He  shows  the  need  for  it,  he  explains  what  it  is — emphasiz- 
ing its  distinctive  features  in  contrast  to  those  of  the  old  system,  and 
at  the  same  time  proving  that  it  is  the  necessary  and  expected  out- 
come of  that  old  system.  He  then  proceeds  to  describe  the  work- 
ing of  this  system  in  the  Christian  life ;  and  lastly  he  vindicates 
for  it  its  true  place  in  history.  The  universal  character  of  the  new 
Gospel  has  been  already  emphasized,  he  must  now  trace  the  plan 
by  which  it  is  to  attain  this  universality.  The  rejection  of  the  Jews, 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  are  both  steps  in  this  process  and 
necessary  steps.  But  the  method  and  plan  pursued  in  these  cases 
and  partially  revealed,  enable  us  to  learn,  if  we  have  faith  to  do 
go,  that  '  mystery  which  has  been  hidden  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,'  but  which  has  always  guided  the  course  of  human 
history — the  purpose  of  God  to  '  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ' 

If  this  point  has  been  made  clear,  it  will  enable  us  to  bring  out 
the  essential  unity  and  completeness  of  the  argument  of  the 
Epistle.  We  do  not  agree  as  we  have  explained  above  with  the 
opinion  of  Baur,  revived  by  Dr.  Hort,  that  chap,  ix-xi  represent 
the  essential  part  of  the  Epistle,  to  which  all  the  earlier  part  is  but 
an  introduction.  That  is  certainly  a  one-sided  view.  But  Dr. 
Hort's  examination  of  the  Epistle  is  valuable  as  reminding  us  that 
neither  are  these  chapters  an  appendix  accidentally  added  which 
might  be  omitted  without  injuring  St.  Paul's  argument  and  plan. 

We  can  trace  incidentally  the  various  difficulties,  partly  raised  by 
opponents,  partly  suggested  by  his  own  thought,  which  have  helped 
to  shape  different  portions  of  the  Epistle.  We  are  able  to  analyze 
and  separate  the  difierent  stages  in  the  argument  more  accurately 
and  distinctly  than  in  any  other  of  St.  Paul's  writings.  But  this 
must  not  blind  us  to  the  lact  that  the  whole  is  one  great  argument; 
the  purpose  of  which  is  to  explain  the  Gospel  of  God  in  Jesus  the 
Messiah,  and  to  show  its  ehects  on  human  life,  and  in  the  history 
of  the  race,  and  thus  to  vindicate  for  it  the  right  to  be  considered 
the  ultimate  and  final  revelation  oi  God's  purpose  for  mankind. 

d 


ul  epistle  to  the  romans  [$  a 

§  6.  Language  and  Style. 

(i)  Language^.    It  will  seem  at  first  sight  to  the  oninitiated 

reader  a  rather  strange  paradox  that  a  letter  addressed  to  the 
capital  of  the  Western  or  Latin  world  should  be  written  in  Greek. 
Yei  there  is  no  paradox,  either  to  the  classical  scholar  who  is 
acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Early  Empire,  or  to  the  ecclesias- 
tical historian  who  follows  the  fortunes  of  the  Early  Church.  Both 
are  aware  that  for  fully  two  centuries  and  a  half  Greek  was  the 
predominant  language  if  not  of  the  city  of  Rome  as  a  whole  yet  of 
large  sections  of  its  inhabitants,  and  in  particular  of  those  sections 
amonq  which  was  to  be  sought  the  main  body  of  the  readers  of 
the  Epistle. 

The  early  history  of  the  Church  of  Rome  might  be  said  to  fall 
into  three  periods,  of  which  the  landmarks  would  be  (i)  the  appear- 
ance of  the  first  Latin  writers,  said  by  Jerome  ■  to  be  ApoUonius 
who  suffered  under  Commodus  in  the  year  185,  and  whose 
Apology  and  Acts  have  been  recently  recovered  in  an  Armenian 
Version  and  edited  by  Mr.  Conybeare ',  and  Victor,  an  African  by 
birth,  who  became  Bishop  of  Rome  about  189  a.d.  (a)  Next 
would  come  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century  a  more  considerable 
body  of  Latin  literature,  the  writings  of  Novatian  and  the  corre- 
spondence between  the  Church  of  Rome  and  Cyprian  at  Carthage. 
(3)  Then,  lastly,  there  would  be  the  definite  Latinizing  of  the  capital 
of  the  West  which  followed  upon  the  transference  of  the  seat  of 
empire  to  Constantinople  dating  from  330  a.  d. 

(i)  The  evidence  of  Juvenal  and  Martial  refers  to  the  latter  half  of  the 
first  centnry.  Juvenal  speaks  with  indignation  of  the  extent  to  which  Rome 
was  being  converted  into  '  a  Greek  city  *.  Martial  regards  ignorance  of  Greek 
as  a  mark  of  rusticity '.  Indeed,  there  was  a  double  tendency  which  em- 
braced at  once  classes  at  both  ends  of  the  social  scale.  On  the  one  hand 
among  slaves  and  in  the  trading  classes  there  were  swarms  of  Greeks  and 
Greek-speaking  Orientals.  On  the  other  hand  in  the  higher  ranks  it  was 
the  fashion  to  speak  Greek ;  children  were  taught  it  by  Greek  nursei;  and  in 
•fter  life  the  use  of  it  was  carried  to  the  pitch  of  affectation  •. 

For  thr  Tewish  colony  we  have  the  evidence  of  the  inscriptions.  Ont  of 
thirty-eight  collected  by  Schurer^  00  less  than  thirty  are  Greek  and  eight  only 

'  The  question  of  the  use  of  Greek  at  Rome  has  been  often  discnsscd 
and  the  evidence  for  it  set  forth,  but  the  classical  treatment  of  the  subject  is  by 
the  late  Dr.  C.  P.  Caspari,  Professor  at  Christiania,  in  an  Excursus  of  aoo 
pages  to  vol.  iii.  of  his  work  QntlUn  tmr  Gesthitht$  d$s  Tau/symholt  (Chris- 
tiania, 1875). 

^  De  Fir.  III.  liii.  Tertullianui  pntbyUr  uunt  dtmum  primm  fott  Vu^mm 
tt  ApoUonium  Latinorum  ponitur. 

^  Monuments  of  Early  Christianity  (London,  1894),  p.  ao  ff. 

*  Juv.  Sat.  iii.  60  f.  ;  cf.  vi.  187  ff  •  Ep^.  riT.  58. 

•  Caspari,  QiuUen  zum  Tauf symbol,  iii.  J 86  f. 

^  Gtnuindeverfassung,  p.  33  ff.  The  inscriptions  referred  to  uc  aH  froa 
Roman  sites.     I'here  is  also  one  in  Greek  from  Portus. 


*«.] 


LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE  Uil 


Latin  and  if  one  of  the  Greek  inscriptions  it  in  Latin  charactera,  eonvenelj 
tiiree  of  the  Latin  are  in  Greek  characters.  There  do  not  seem  to  be  any  in 
Hebrew'. 

Of  Christian  inscriptions  the  proportion  of  Greek  to  Latin  woald  seem  to  be 
•bont  1 :  a.  £at  the  great  mass  of  these  would  belong  to  a  period  later  than 
that  of  which  we  are  speaking.  De  Rossi  ^  estimates  the  number  for  the  period 
between  M.  Aurelins  and  Septimins  Severus  at  about  i6o,  of  which  something 
like  half  would  be  Greek.     Beyond  this  we  can  hardly  go. 

But  as  to  the  Christian  Church  there  is  a  quantity  of  other  evidence.  The 
bishops  of  Rome  from  Linos  to  Elenthems  (c.  174-189  a.d.)  are  twelve  in 
number :  of  these  not  more  than  three  (Clement,  Sixtus  I  =  Xystns,  Pius)  bear 
Latin  names.  But  although  the  names  of  Clement  and  Pius  are  Latin  the 
extant  Epistle  of  Clement  is  written  in  Greek ;  we  know  also  that  Hermas, 
the  author  of '  The  Shepherd,*  was  the  brother  of  Pius  *,  and  he  wrote  in  Greek. 
Lideed  all  the  literature  that  we  can  in  any  way  connect  with  Christian  Rome 
down  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  M.  Aurelius  is  Greek.  Besides  the  works  of 
Clement  and  Hennas  we  have  still  surviving  the  letter  addressed  to  the  Church 
at  Rome  by  Ignatius ;  and  later  in  the  period,  the  letter  written  by  Soter 
(c.  166-174  A.D.)  to  the  Corinthian  Church  was  evidently  in  Greek*.  Justin 
and  Tatian  who  were  settled  in  Rome  wrote  in  Greek  ;  so  too  did  Rhodon, 
a  pupil  of  Tatian's  at  Rome  who  carried  on  their  tradition  \  Greek  was  the 
language  of  Polycarp  and  Hegesippus  who  paid  visits  to  Rome  of  shorter 
duration.  A  number  of  Gnostic  writers  established  themselves  there  and  used 
Greek  for  the  vehicle  of  their  teaching  :  so  Cerdon,  Marcion,  and  Valentinas, 
who  were  all  in  Rome  about  140  A.D.  Valentinus  left  behind  a  considerable 
school,  and  the  leading  representatives  of  the  '  Italic '  branch,  Ptolemaeus 
and  Heracleon,  both  wrote  in  Greek.  We  may  assume  the  same  thing  of  the 
other  Gnostics  combated  by  Justin  and  Irenaeus.  Irenaeus  himself  spent  some 
time  at  Rome  in  the  Episcopate  of  Eleuthems,  and  wrote  his  great  work 
In  Greek. 

To  this  period  may  also  be  traced  back  the  oldest  form  of  the  Creed  of 
the  Roman  Church  now  known  as  the  Apostles*  Creed'.  This  was  in  Greek. 
And  there  are  stray  Greek  fragments  of  Western  Liturgies  which  ultimately 
go  back  to  the  same  place  and  time.  Such  would  be  the  Hymnus  angtlicmt 
(Luke  ii.  14)  repeated  in  Greek  at  Christmas,  the  Trishagion,  Kyrie  eUison 
and  Christt  eltuon.  On  certain  set  days  (at  Christmas,  Easter,  Ember  days, 
and  some  others)  lections  were  read  in  Greek  as  well  as  Latin ;  hymns  were 
occasionally  sung  in  Greek  ;  and  at  the  formal  committal  of  the  Creed  to  the 
candidates  for  baptism  (the  so-called  Traditio  and  Redditio  Symboli)  both 
the  Apostles*  Creed  (in  its  longer  and  shorttr  forms)  and  the  Nicene  were 

1  Comp.  also  Berliner,  L  54.  *  Ap.  Caspari,  p.  303. 

'  Pius  is  described  in  the  Liher  PontiJtcalU  as  natione  Italm  .  . .  de  dvi/mU 
Aquileia ;  but  there  is  reason  to  think  that  Hermas  was  a  native  of  Arcadia. 
The  assignments  of  nationality  to  the  earliest  bishops  are  of  very  donbtfol 
▼aloe. 

*  It  was  to  be  kept  in  the  archini  and  read  on  Snndays  like  the  letter  of 
Clement  (Eus.  H.  E.  IV.  xxiu.  11). 

»  Eus.  H.  E.  V.  xiii.  i. 

*  It  was  m  pursuit  of  the  origin  of  this  Creed  that  Caspari  was  drawn  into 
his  elaborate  researches.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  it  was  in  nse  at  Rome  by 
the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The  main  question  at  the  present  moment 
is  whether  it  was  also  composed  there,  and  if  not  whence  it  came.  Caspari 
would  derive  it  from  Asia  Minor  and  the  circle  of  St.  John.  This  is  a  problem 
which  we  may  look  to  have  solved  by  Dr.  Kattenbusch  lA  Giessen,  who  ii 
continuing  Ca^Mh's  labous  {Dtu  Afattli$tk$  SjmM,  Bd.  L  Leiptig, 
1894). 


Inr  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [^  6^ 

redted  and  the  qnestions  pat  first  in  Greek  and  then  in  latin*.     These  are 

all  •urvivals  of  Roman  usage  at  the  time  when  the  Church  wai  bilingual. 

(2)  The  dates  of  ApoUonius  and  of  Bp.  Victor  are  fixed,  but  rather  mort 
uncertainty  hangs  over  that  of  the  first  really  classical  Christian  work  in 
Latin,  the  Octaviui  of  Minucius  Felix.  This  has  been  much  debated,  but 
opinion  seems  to  be  veering  round  to  the  earlier  date*,  which  would  bring  him 
into  near  proximity  to  ApoUonius,  perhaps  at  the  end  of  the  reign  ol 
M.  Anrelius.  The  period  which  then  begins  and  extends  from  c.  180-350  A.D. 
shows  a  more  even  balance  of  Greek  and  Latin.  The  two  prominent  writen, 
Hippolytus  and  Caius,  still  make  use  of  Greek.  The  grounds  perhaps  pre- 
ponderate for  regarding  the  Muratorian  Fragment  as  a  translation.  But  at  the 
beginning  of  the  period  we  have  Minucius  Felix  and  at  the  end  Novatian, 
and  Latin  begins  to  have  the  upper  hand  in  the  names  of  bishops.  The 
glimpse  which  we  get  of  the  literary  activity  of  the  Church  of  Rome  through 
the  letters  and  other  writings  preserved  among  the  works  of  Cyprian  shows  u 
at  last  Latin  in  possession  of  the  field. 

(3)  The  Hellenizing  character  of  Roman  Christianity  was  due  in  the  fin* 
instance  to  the  constant  intercourse  between  Rome  and  the  East.  In  the 
troubled  times  which  followed  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  with  the  decay 
of  wealth  and  trade,  and  Gothic  piracies  breaking  up  iht  pax  R omana  on  the 
Aegean,  this  intercourse  was  greatly  interrupted.  Thus  Greek  influences  lost 
their  strength.  The  Latin  Church,  Rome  reinforced  by  Africa,  had  now 
a  substantial  literature  of  its  own.  Under  leaders  like  TertuUian,  Cjrprian, 
and  Novatian  it  had  begun  to  develop  its  proper  individuality.  It  could 
stand  and  walk  alone  without  assistance  from  the  East.  And  a  decisive 
impulse  was  given  to  its  independent  career  by  the  founding  of  Constantinople. 
The  stream  set  from  that  time  onwards  towards  the  Bosphorus  and  no  longer 
towards  the  Tiber.  Rome  ceases  to  be  the  centre  of  the  Empire  to  become 
in  a  still  more  exclusive  sense  the  capital  of  the  West 

(a)  Style.  The  Epistles  which  bear  the  name  of  St.  Paul  present 
a  considerable  diversity  of  style.  To  such  an  extent  is  this  the 
case  that  the  question  is  seriously  raised  whether  they  can  have  had 
the  same  author.  Of  all  the  arguments  urged  on  the  negative 
side  this  from  style  is  the  most  substantial ;  and  whatever  decision 
we  come  to  on  the  subject  there  remains  a  problem  of  much 
complexity  and  difficulty. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Pauline  Epistles  fail  into  four  groups 
which  are  connected  indeed  with  each  other,  but  at  the. same  tinie 
stand  out  with  much  distinctness.  These  groups  are  :  .'i,  2  Thesa/; 
(Gal.,  I,  2  Cor.,  Rom.';  Phil.,  Col.,  Eph.,  Philem. ;  Past.  Epp.  Tne 
four  Epistles  of  the  second  group  hang  very  closely  together; 
those  of  the  third  group  subdivide  into  two  pairs,  Phil.  Philem.  on 
the  one  hand,  and  Eph.  Col.  on  the  other.  It  is  hard  to  dissociate 
Col.  from  Philem. ;  and  the  very  strong  presumption  in  favour  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  latter  Episde  reacts  upon  the  former.  The 
tendency  of  critical  inquiry  at  the  present  moment  is  in  favour  ol 
Colossians  and  somewhat  less  decidetlly  in  favour  of  Ephesians. 
It  is,  for  instance,  significant  that  Jillicher  in  his  recent  Einkilung 

*  More  precise  and  full  details  will  be  found  in  Caspari's  Excuma,  Ot.  at, 
p.  466  ff. 
"  Kriiger.  AUckristl.  Lit.  p.  88. 


$  6.]  LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE  Iv 

(Freiburg  L  B.  and  Leipzig,  1894)  sums  up  rather  on  this  side  of 
the  question  than  the  other.  We  believe  that  this  points  to  what 
will  be  the  ultimate  verdict.  But  in  the  matter  of  style  it  must  be 
confessed  that  Col.  and  Eph. — and  more  especially  Eph. — stand  at 
the  furthest  possible  remove  from  Romans.  We  may  take  Eph. 
and  Rom.  as  marking  the  extreme  poles  of  difference  within  the 
Epistles  claimed  for  St.  Paul  ^  Any  other  member  of  the  second 
group  would  do  as  well ;  but  as  we  are  concerned  specially  with 
Rom.,  we  may  institute  a  comparison  with  it. 

The  diflference  is  not  so  much  a  difference  of  ideas  and  of 
vocabulary  as  a  difference  of  structure  and  composition.  There  are, 
it  is  true,  a  certain  number  of  new  and  peculiar  expressions  in  the 
later  Epistle ;  but  these  are  so  balanced  by  points  of  coincidence, 
and  the  novel  element  has  so  much  of  the  nature  of  simple  addi- 
tion rather  than  contrariety,  that  to  draw  a  conclusion  adverse  to 
St  Paul's  authorship  would  certainly  not  be  warranted.  The  sense 
of  dissimilarity  reaches  its  height  when  we  turn  from  the  materials 
(if  we  may  80  speak)  of  the  style  to  the  way  in  which  they  are 
put  together.  The  discrepancy  lies  not  in  the  anatomy  but  in  the 
surface  distribution  of  hght  and  shade,  in  the  play  of  feature,  in 
the  temperament  to  which  the  two  Epistles  seem  to  give  expression. 
We  will  enlarge  a  little  on  this  point,  as  the  contrast  may  help  us 
to  understand  the  individuality  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

This  Epistle,  like  all  the  others  of  the  group,  is  characterized 
by  a  remarkable  energy  and  vivacity.  It  is  calm  in  the  sense 
that  it  is  not  aggressive  and  that  the  rush  of  words  is  always  well 
under  control.  Still  there  is  a  rush  of  words,  rising  repeatedly  to 
passages  of  splendid  eloquence ;  but  the  eloquence  is  spontaneous, 
the  outcome  of  strongly  moved  feeling ;  there  is  nothing  about  it 
of  laboured  oratory.  The  language  is  rapid,  terse,  incisive;  the 
argument  is  conducted  by  a  quick  cut  and  thrust  of  dialectic ;  it 
reminds  us  of  a  fencer  with  his  eye  always  on  his  antagonist. 

We  shut  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  we  open  that  to  the 
Ephesians ;  how  great  is  the  contrast  I  We  cannot  speak  here  of 
vivacity,  hardly  of  energy ;  if  there  is  energy  it  is  deep  down 
below  the  surface.  The  rapid  argumentative  cut  and  thrust  is 
gone.  In  its  place  we  have  a  slowly-moving  onwards-advancing 
mass,  like  a  glacier  working  its  way  inch  by  inch  down  the  valley. 
The  periods  are  of  unwieldy  length;  the  writer  seems  to  stagger 
under  his  load.  He  has  weighty  truths  to  express,  and  he  struggles 
to  express  them — not  without  success,  but  certainly  with  little 
flexibility  or  ease  of  composition.  The  truths  unfolded  read  like 
abstract  truths,  ideal  verities,  '  laid  up  in  the  heavens  '  rather  than 
embodying  themselves  in  the  active  controversies  of  earth, 

'  The  difference  between  these  Epistles  on  the  side  we  tat  considering  if 
(reater  (e.  g.)  than  that  between  Romans  and  the  Pastorala. 


Ivi  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  0^ 

There  is,  as  we  shall  see,  another  side.    We  ha^e  perhaps 

xaggerated  the  opposition  for  the  sake  of  making  the  difference 
lear.  When  we  come  to  look  more  closely  at  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  we  shall  find  in  it  not  a  few  passages  which  tend  in  the 
direction  of  the  characteristics  of  Ephesians ;  and  when  we  examine 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  we  shall  find  in  it  much  to  remind  us 
of  characteristics  of  Romans.  We  will  however  leave  the  com- 
parison as  it  has  been  made  for  the  moment,  and  ask  ourselves 
what  means  we  have  of  explaining  it.  Supposing  the  two  Epistles 
to  be  really  the  work  of  the  same  man,  can  the  difference  between 
them  be  adequately  accounted  for  ? 

There  is  always  an  advantage  in  presenting  proportion*  to  the  eye  and 
redacing  them  to  some  sort  of  numerical  estimate.  This  can  be  done  in 
the  present  case  without  much  difficulty  by  reckoning  up  the  number  ci 
longer  pauses.  This  is  done  below  for  the  two  Epistles,  Romans  and  Ephe- 
sians. The  standard  used  is  that  of  the  Revisers'  Greek  Text,  and  the 
estimate  of  length  is  based  on  the  number  of  arlxoi  or  printed  lines  ^  ll 
«iU  be  worth  while  to  compare  the  Epistles  chapter  by  chapter : — 


Romans. 

€Tlx9i. 

(•) 

(•) 

tt 

CLL 

64 

>S 

>4 

— i 

n. 

«I 

M 

1 

• 

IIL 

47 

to 

la 

If 

IV. 

45 

< 

»4 

» 

V. 

47 

( 

If 

VI 

4» 

8 

14 

"I 

VII. 

49 

16 

to 

1 

VIII. 

70 

»7 

*6 

H 

DC. 

05 

8 

»9 

10 

X 

37 

« 

16 

9 

XI. 

i? 

16 

«7 

II 

trinalport 

ion   570 

130 

184 
40t 

w 

XIL 

3« 

14 

IS 

^ 

XIIL 

»9 

II 

IS 

1 

XIV. 

tl 

II 

»7 

f 

XV. 

8 

t4 

a8 

XVI. 

»o 

_7 

— 

e  Epistle 

789 

181 

190 

f» 

563 

Here  the  proportion  of  major  point*  to  trrlxot  is  for  the  doctrinal  chap- 
ters 402:570  >=  (approximately)  i  in  1.4;  and  for  the  whole  Epistle  not 
Tcry  different,  563  :  789  =«  i  in  I'4i8.  The  proportion  of  interrogative 
sentences  is  for  the  whole  Epistle,  9a  :  789,  or  i  in  8-6 ;  for  the  doctrinal 
chapters  only,  88 :  570,  or  i  in  6-5 ;  and  for  the  practical  porticm  only, 
4 :  319,  or  I  in  55.    This  last  item  is  instructive,  beosose  it  show*  how  very 

'  The  counting  o\  these  is  approximate,  anything  over  half  a  line  being 
Kckooed  as  a  whole  Une,  and  anything  less  than  half  a  line  not  veolconed 


4  a.]  LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE  Ivii 

greatly,  even  in  the  tame  Epistle,  the  amount  of  interrogation  rariet  with 
the  subject-matter.     We  also  observe  that  in  two  even  of  the  doctrinal  chap- 
ters interrogative  sentences  are  wanting.    They  lie  indeed  in  patches  or 
thick  clusters,  and  are  not  distributed  equally  throughout  the  Epiatl*. 
Now  w«  tiUB  to  Ephesiaoi^  for  which  the  data  art  as  follow*:— 

ErmsiAMS. 
^rlxm  (•)  O  (0 


a.! 

4S 

4 

1 

«. 

n. 

40 

9 

•B> 

m, 

36 

t 

• 

— 

[111 

IS 

>S 

-1 

IV. 

SI 

• 

H 

I 

▼. 

1* 

n 

If 

>v 

TL 

M 

s 

■S 

.«> 

WW 

^m^ 

•!• 

»» 

S8 

1 

1%W 

95 

This  fiTCi  a  very  different  Riiih.  The  proportion  of  major  points  ia  Im 
Eph.  i-iii,  roughly  speaking,  i  in  4,  as  against  i  in  1-4  for  R<Hn.  i-zii,  and 
for  the  whole  Epistle  rather  more  than  i  in  3,  as  against  i  in  i>4i8.  Th« 
propoitioB  of  interrogations  is  i  in  170  compared  with  i  in  8^  or  6<{. 

In  illustrating  the  nature  of  the  difference  in  style  between 
Romans  and  Ephesians  we  have  left  in  suspense  for  a  time  the 
question  as  to  its  cause.  To  this  we  will  now  return,  and  set  down 
some  of  the  influences  which  may  have  been  at  work — which  we 
may  be  sure  were  at  work — and  which  would  go  a  long  way  to 
•ccoont  for  it 

(i)  First  would  be  /At  natural  variation  of  style  which  comes 
from  dealing  with  different  subject-matter.  The  Epistles  of  the 
second  group  are  all  very  largely  concerned  with  the  controversy 
as  to  Circimicision  and  the  relations  of  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christians.  In  the  later  Epistle  this  controversy  has  retired  into 
the  background,  and  other  topics  have  taken  its  place.  Ideas  are 
abroad  as  to  the  mediating  agencies  between  God  and  man  which 
impair  the  central  significance  of  the  Person  of  Christ ;  and  the 
multiplication  of  new  Churches  with  the  growing  organization  of 
intercommunication  between  those  of  older  standing,  brings  to  the 
front  the  conception  of  the  Church  as  a  whole,  and  invests  it  with 
increased  impressiveness. 

These  facts  are  reflected  on  the  vocabulary  of  the  two  Epistles.  The 
controversy  with  the  Judaizers  gives  a  marked  colour  to  the  whole  gronp 
which  includes  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  This  will  appear  on  the  face 
of  the  statistics  of  usage  as  to  the  frequency  with  which  the  leading  terms 
occur  in  these  Epistles  and  in  the  rest  of  the  Pauline  Corpus.  Of  coarse 
some  of  the  instances  will  be  accidental,  but  by  far  the  greater  number  ara 
significant  Those  which  follow  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  Jndaistie 
controveny.     '  Elsewhere  '  means  elsewhere  in  the  Paoline  Epistles. 


kriii  EPISTLB  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  6. 

'  'AfipaAn  Rom.  9,  t  Cor.  i,  Gal.  9 ;  not  elMwhere  in  St  Panl.     [owipim 
'k^paan  Rom.  i,  2  Cor.  1,  GaL  i.] 

iMpo^varia  Rom.  3,  i  Cor.  2,  Gal.  3 ;  elsewhere  3. 

AwocToK^i  Rom.  i,  i  Cor.  i,  Gal.  i ;  not  elsewhere  in  St.  PaaL 

itKOiovv  Rom.  15,  I  Cor.  2,  GaL  3;  elsewhere  a. 

iiKcuwfM  Rom.  5 ;  not  elsewhere. 

tiKaiwcis  Rom.  a ;  not  elsewhere. 

aarapytiy  Rom.  6,  i  Cor.  9,  2  Cot.  4,  Gal.  3 ;  eliewheri  4. 

r6ftos  Rom.  76,  i  Cor.  8,  Gal.  33 ;  elsewhere  6. 

wffnTOfiT}  Rom.  15,  i  Cor.  i,  GaL  7 ;  elsewhere  8. 

0ir(pfia  Rom.  9,  I  Cor.  i,  a  Cor.  i,  Gal.  5;  elsewhere  i. 
Connected  with  this  controversy,  though  not  quite  so  directly,  woold  bt  »^ 

daOfvrjs  Rom.  I,  I  Cor.  10,  a  Cor.  i,  Gal.  i ;  elsewhere  i. 

iaOtvui  Rom.  4,  i  Cor.  a,  a  Cor.  6 ;  elsewhere  a. 

iaOfvtia  Rom.  a,  i  Cor.  a,  a  Cor.  6,  Gal.  i ;  elsewheic  I. 

aaOivTjfta  Rom.  i ;  not  elsewhere. 

iXtvOfpos  Rom.  a,  i  Cor.  6,  Gal.  6 ;  elsewheic  a. 

iKfvOtpovy  Rom.  4,  GaL  i ;  not  elsewhere. 

4Xcv5«p«a  Rom.  i,  i  Cor.  i,  a  Cor.  i.  Gal.  i ;  not  elsewhere. 

KavxaaOai  Rom.  5,  I  Cor.  5  (i  v.L),  a  Cor.  ao,  GaL  a ;  elsewhere  ^ 

•ai/x^Ma  Rom.  I,  I  Cor.  3,  a  Cor.  3,  Gal.  i ;  elsewhere  t. 

«ai;X^<^'*  Rom.  a,  1  Cor.  i,  a  Cor.  6 ;  elsewhere  I. 

»aTaKaKxn<^^a'  Rom.  2  ;  not  elsewhere. 

i<pfi\tTTjs  Rom.  3,  Gal.  i ;  not  elsewhere. 

itf>eiXT}fia  Rom.  I ;  not  elsewhere. 

vKilivSaXov  Rom.  4,   I   Cor.   i,  Gal.   i ;   not  elsewhere.     [#cer8aX/(iHr 
I  Cor.  2,  a  Cor.  i,  Rom.  i  r.  1.] 

ixptK  IV  Rom.  I,  I  Cor.  2,  Gal.  i  :  ixpiKtta  Rom.  1 ;  neither  elsewhere. 
Two  other  points  may  be  noticed,  one  in  connexion  with  the  large  use  of 
the  O.T.  in  these  Epistles,  and  the  other  in  connexion  with  the   idea  ol 
•uccessive  periods  into  which  the  religious  history  of  mankind  is  divided  : — 

-fi-ypanrai  Rom.   16,    i   Cor.   J,   a  Cor.   3,   GtA.  4;    not  elsewhere  in 
St.  Paul. 

dx/>'»  oil  Rom.  I,  I  Cor.  a,  Gal.  a  (i  v.L) ;  not  elsewhere. 

«</)'  offov  xpovov  Rom.  I,  I  Cor.  i,  Gal.  I ;  not  elsewhere 
These  examples  stand  out  very  distinctly;  and  their  disappearance  from 
the  later  Epistle  is  perfectly  intelligible  :  cessante  causa,  cessat  effectut. 

(«)  But  it  is  not  only  that  the  subject-matter  of  Ephesians  differs 
from  that  of  Romans,  the  circumstances  under  which  it  is  presented 
also  differ.  Romans  belongs  to  a  period  of  controversy,  and 
although  at  the  time  when  the  Epistle  is  written  the  worst  is  over, 
and  the  Apostle  is  able  to  survey  the  field  calmly,  and  to  state  his 
case  uncontroversially,  still  the  crisis  through  which  he  has  passed 
has  left  its  marks  behind.  The  echoes  of  war  are  still  in  his  ears. 
The  treatment  of  his  subject  is  concrete  and  not  abstract.  He 
sees  in  imagination  his  adversary  before  him,  and  he  argues  much 
as  he  might  have  argued  in  the  synagogue,  or  in  the  presence  of 
refractory  converts.  The  atmosphere  of  the  Epistle  is  that  of 
per.sonal  debate.     This  acts  as   a  stimulus,  it  makes   the    blood 

*  These  examples  are  selected  from  the  lists  in  Bishop  Lightfoot's  classical 
>  essay  '  On  the  Style  and  Character  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians*'  \nJoum.  ^ 
Ckui.  amd  Satr.  Fhilol.  ill.  (1857)  308  fif. 


§«.]  l^NGUAGE  AND  STYLB  lix 

drculate  more  rapidly  in  the  veins,  and  ghret  to  the  style  a  liveli- 
ness and  directness  which  might  be  wanting  when  the  pressure  was 
removed.  Between  Romans,  written  to  a  definite  Church  and 
gathering  up  the  result  of  a  time  of  great  activity,  the  direct  out- 
come of  prolonged  discussion  in  street  and  house  and  school,  and 
Ephesians,  written  in  all  probability  not  to  a  single  Church  but  to 
a  group  of  Churches,  with  its  personal  edge  thus  taken  off,  and 
written  too  under  confinement  after  some  three  years  of  enforced 
inaction,  it  would  be  natural  that  there  should  be  a  difference. 

(3)  This  brings  us  to  a  third  point  which  may  be  taken  with  the 
last,  the  allowance  which  ought  to  be  made  for  the  special  tempera- 
ment of  the  Apostle.  His  writings  furnish  abundant  evidence  of 
a  highly  strung  nervous  organization.  It  is  likely  enough  that  the 
physical  infirmity  from  which  he  suffered,  the  '  thorn  in  the  flesh ' 
which  had  such  a  prostrating  effect  upon  him,  was  of  nervous 
origin.  But  constitutions  of  this  order  are  liable  to  great  fluctua- 
tions of  physical  condition.  There  will  be  '  lucid  moments,'  and 
more  than  lucid  moments — months  together  during  which  the 
brain  will  work  not  only  with  ease  and  freedom,  but  with  an 
intensity  and  power  not  vouchsafed  to  other  men.  And  times  such 
as  these  will  alternate  with  periods  of  depression  when  body  and 
mind  alike  are  sluggish  and  languid,  and  when  an  effort  of  will  is 
needed  to  compel  production  of  any  kind.  Now  the  physical 
conditions  under  which  St.  Paul  wrote  his  letter  to  the  Romans 
would  as  naturally  belong  to  the  first  head  as  those  under  which  he 
wrote  the  Epistle  which  we  call  *  Ephesians  *  would  to  the  second. 
Once  more  we  should  expect  antecedently  that  they  would  leave 
a  strong  impress  upon  the  style. 

The  difference  in  style  between  Rom.  and  Eph.  would  seem  to  be  very 
largely  a  difference  in  the  amount  of  vital  energy  throwii  into  the  two 
Epistles.  Vivacity  is  a  distinguishing  mark  of  the  one  as  a  certain  slow  and 
laboured  movement  is  of  the  other.  We  may  trace  to  this  cause  the 
phenomena  which  have  been  already  noted — the  shorter  sentences  of  Romans, 
the  long  involved  periods  of  Ephesians,  the  frequency  of  interrogation  on  the 
one  hand,  its  absence  on  the  other.  In  Rom.  we  have  the  champion  of 
Gentile  Christendom  with  his  sword  drawn,  prepared  to  meet  all  comers ;  in 
Eph.  we  have  '  such  an  one  as  Paul  the  aged,  and  now  a  prisoner  &lso  0/ 
Jesuf  Christ.' 

Among  the  expressions  specially  characteristic  of  this  aspect  of  Ep.  tO 
Romans  would  be  the  following : — 

«^a,  beginning  a  sentence,  Rom.  9,  i  Cor.  i,  a  Cor.  a,  Gal.  5  ;  elsewhert 
Epp.  Paul.  3,  Heb.  a.  \oi^  ovv  Rom.  8  (or  9  v.  1.),  Gal.  i  ;  elsewheit 
3  :  o^a  without  oSc  Rom.  i  (or  s  ▼.  L),  I  Cor.  i,  GaL  3,  Heb.  a.] 

dAAd  Xt-fo)  Rom.  t. 

Ai7ai  S€  Gal.  a. 

X(7(v  Ovv  Rom.  a. 

X^7a;  a  rovTO  Sri  I  Cor.  S« 

•dAif  Kiyw  a  Cor.  ». 


Ix  EPISTL£  TO  THE  ROMANS  ^  •. 

v«9r»  M  Xiyw  GtL  i. 

tyii  IlavXos  Kifv  Ifuif  8n  GaL  I. 
wav ;  wov  dv ;  Rom.  i,  i  Cor.  8,  Gal.  I ;  not  ebenbei*. 
«(  oiy;  rlt  oZv;  Rom.  ii,  I  Cor.  5,  GaL  i;  not  elatwhcn.    [ri  9h 

ipovfitv;  Rom.  6;  ri  ipovfitv;  Rom  i.] 
rl  Xiyu  {>^iyu,  See.)  Rom.  3,  Gal.  i ;  not  elsewheni 
tiar£  Rom.  I,  I  Cor.  a,  a  Cor.  i ;  not  elaewhero. 
tfip,  onusoal  compoonds  of — 

{rwtfMKTfivuv  a  Cor.  i. 

ivtpklay  a  Cor.  a. 

inrtpyucav  Rom.  i. 

twfpvtpiafffvfty  Rom.  i,  s  Cor.  i. 

hr*p<ppoytiy  Rom.  i . 

(4)  A  last  cause  which  we  suspect  may  possibly  have  been  «t 
work,  though  this  is  more  a  matter  of  conjecture,  is  the  employment  of 
different  amanuenses.  We  know  that  St.  Paul  did  not  as  a  rule 
write  his  own  letters.  But  then  the  question  arises,  How  were 
they  written  ?  It  seems  to  us  probable  that  they  were  in  the  first 
instance  taken  down  in  shorthand — much  as  our  own  merchants  or 
public  men  dictate  their  correspondence  to  a  shorthand  writer — 
and  then  written  out  fair.  We  believe  this  to  have  been  the  case 
from  the  double  fact  that  dictation  was  extremely  common — so 
that  even  as  early  as  Horace  and  Persius  diciare  had  already 
come  to  mean  *  to  compose ' — and  from  the  wide  diffusion  of  the 
art  of  shorthand.  We  know  that  Origen's  lectures  were  taken 
down  in  this  way,  and  that  fair  copies  were  made  of  them  at 
leisure  (Eus.  H.  E.  VI.  xxiii.  a).  But  we  can  well  believe  that  if 
this  were  the  case  some  scribes  would  be  more  expert  than  others, 
and  would  reproduce  what  was  dictated  to  them  more  exactly. 
Tertius,  we  should  suppose,  was  one  of  the  best  of  those  whom 
St.  Paul  employed  for  this  purpose.  An  inferior  scribe  would  get 
down  the  main  words  correctly,  but  the  little  connecting  links  he 
may  have  filled  in  for  himself. 

This  is  rather  speculation,  and  we  should  not  wish  to  lay  itreu  npoo  it  in 
any  particular  instance.  It  is  however  interesting  to  note  that  if  we  look 
below  the  superficial  qualities  of  style  at  the  inner  tendencies  of  mind  to 
which  it  gives  expression  the  resemblance  between  Ephesians  and  Romans 
becomes  more  marked,  so  that  we  may  well  ask  whether  we  have  not  before 
u  in  both  the  same  hand.  One  of  the  most  striking  characteristics  of 
St.  Paul  is  the  sort  of  telescopic  manner,  in  which  one  clause  is  as  it  were 
drawn  out  of  another,  each  new  idea  as  it  arises  leading  on  to  some  further 
new  idea,  until  the  main  thought  of  the  paragraph  is  reached  again  often  by 
A  circuitous  route  and  not  seldom  with  a  somewhat  violent  twist  or  turn  at 
the  end.  This  is  specially  noticeable  in  abstract  doctrinal  passages,  just  aa 
a  briefer,  more  broken,  and  more  direct  form  of  address  is  adopted  in  the 
exhortations  relating  to  matters  of  practice.  A  certain  laxity  of  grammatical 
•tructure  is  common  to  both. 

We  will  place  side  by  side  one  or  two  passages  which  may  help  to  show 
tile  fundamental  resemblance  between  the  two  Epistles.  [For  a  defence  ol 
tite  punctuation  of  the  extract  from  Romans  reference  may  be  nude  to  th« 
notes  mi  kc.'\ 


§e.] 


LANGUAGE  AND  STYLE  Ix) 


Rom  iU.  ii-a6.  Eph.  ilL  1-7. 

Vwl  6(   X'^P^*  y6nov  IkKOioa^uvri  Tovrov  x*^/""  '7<^  UavXot  i  94vfuoi 

9tov  nt^vipairai,  fiaprvpovfiivt)  ino  rov    Xpiarcv    'Itfaov    xmip    vftSjv    tSiv 

Tov  v6fxov  Kal  rwf  vpo(pr)Twv  SiKato-  lOvSiv, — ttyt  ijitoiiaaTf  r^v  olKOVon'tav 

trivrj   Si    @tov    Sti.    wiartcos    'Irjaov  rijs  x'^/'*''°*  ''"'^  &fov  rrjs  SoBeiarjs  fioi 

Xptarov  (U  vavrat  roit  viartiovras'  th  vfias,   Sti  KarcL  avoKiXvptv  iyvaj- 

oil   yip  iffTt  StoffToKff'   wAvTfs  ySip  plcrOt]    fioi   rd    fnvarrjpiov,   KaQiit   irpo- 

Ijfiaprov,  Kal  itartpovvrcu  t^s  Sofjjr  iypaxpa  iv  ix'tyq),  vpds  t  SvvaaOt  ava- 

Tov    9(oS'    SiKaiovfxtvoi    SaiptaLy   t§  yiviiOKOvrtt  voriaai  r^v  aiveaiv  ftov  iv 

aiiTOv  X'^P"'*  ''^  '^^  dwoXurpufffoas  r&  fxvffTj]piq}  rod  X.,  i  irtpats  yevfaii 

Ttjt   iy  X.   *I.,  tr  vpofOfTO  6   Btbs  ovk  iyvaipiaOT]  rets  vloTt  rSiv  a.v6pwn<uw^ 

IXaariipiov   Sid   r^f  wiartut   iv   ry  ws  vvv  iirfKaXixpOr]  rots  ayiois  a-noaro' 

avTov  alfMTt,  tit  tvSti(tv  t§»  Stitouo-  Xo«j  airov  ical  tipo<pr)Tait  iv  XlvtvuaTi' 

CvvT}S  airrov,  Sid  t^   irip«Ttv   rSiv  ftvai  rd  (6vrj  crvyKKrjpoySfia  ical  cvaatufta 

vpoytyov6Ttjy   i.iuipTf)ijArvy    kv    rp  koX  cv/x/iiToxa  ttjs  iwayyt\iai  iv  X.  'I. 

droxp  TOV  0tov  vpdt   rfjy  ly5(i(iy  Sici  tov  dayytXlov  ov  iytvr)9r)v   5*4- 

T^    iuauoaivrit   airov    iw   Tip    vvy  uovos  Kara  t^jv  HwpfAv  t^»  x'^P'-'"'''^  '""<''' 

nup^,  <tt  rd  tTvat  airdr  Stxaiov  Moi  Btov  ttjs  SoOuarit  fioi  narii  r^y  ivip- 

Muaiovyra  riv  l«  wUrrtmt  lijaod.  yitar  Trjt  Swa^tvt  airov. 

Li  the  Roman*  passage  we  hare  fiiBt  the  rerelation  of  the  righteousness  of 
God,  then  a  specification  of  the  particular  aspect  of  that  righteousness  with 

•  streas  upon  its  universality,  then  the  more  direct  assertion  of  this  univer- 
•ality,  followed  in  loose  construction  (see  the  note  ad  Uk.)  by  an  announce- 
ment of  the  free  character  of  the  redemption  wrought  by  Christ,  then  a  fuller 
comment  on  the  method  of  this  redemption,  its  object,  the  cause  which  rendered 
it  necessary,  its  object  again,  and  its  motive.  A  wonderful  series  of  contents 
to  come  from  a  single  sentence,  like  those  Chinese  boxes  in  which  one  box 
is  cunningly  fitted  within  another,  each  smaller  than  the  last. 

The  passage  from  Ephesians  in  like  manner  begins  with  a  statement  of  the 
durance  which  the  Apostle  is  suffering  for  the  Gentiles,  then  goes  off  to 
explain  why  specially  for  the  Gentiles,  so  leading  on  to  the  fivar-rjpiov  on 
which  that  mission  to  the  Gentiles  is  based,  then  refers  back  to  the  previous 
mention  of  this  fivarfjpiov,  which  the  readers  are  advised  to  consult,  then 
pives  a  fuller  description  of  its  character,  and  at  last  states  definitely  its 
substance.  Dr.  Gifford  has  pointed  out  (on  Rom.  iii.  26)  how  the  argu- 
ment works  round  in  Lph.  to  the  same  word  nvar-ljpiov  as  in  Rom.  to  the 
tame  word  ivSu^iv.  And  we  have  similar  examples  in  Rom.  ii.  16  and  iii.  8, 
where  two  distinct  trains  of  thought  and  of  construction  converge  uprai 

•  clause  which  is  made  to  do  duty  at  the  same  time  for  both. 

The  particular  passage  of  Ephesians  was  chosen  as  illustrating  this  pecu- 
liarity. But  the  general  tendency  to  the  formation  of  periods  on  what  we 
have  called  the  'telescopic'  method — not  conforming  to  a  plan  of  structure 
deliberately  adopted  from  the  first,  but  linking  on  clause  to  clause,  each  sug- 
gested by  the  last — runs  through  the  whole  of  the  first  three  chapters  of 
Eph.  and  has  abundant  analogues  in  Rom.  (i.  1-7,  18-24;  ii-  5-i6;  iii.  21- 
36;  iv.  11-17;  v.  12-14;  i*-  33-39;  XV.  14-38).  The  passages  from 
Rom.  are  as  we  have  said  somewhat  more  lively  than  those  from  Eph. ; 
they  have  a  more  argumentative  cast,  indicated  by  the  frequent  use  of  yap ; 
whereas  those  from  Eph.  are  not  so  much  argumentative  as  expository,  and 
consist  rather  of  a  succession  of  clauses  connected  by  relatives.  But  the 
difference  is  really  superficial,  and  the  underlying  resemblance  is  great. 

Just  one  other  specimen  may  be  given  of  marked  resemblance  of  a  some- 
what different  kind — the  use  of  a  quotation  from  the  O.T.  with  running 
comments.  In  this  instance  we  may  strengthen  the  impression  by  printing 
for  comparison  a  third  passage  from  Ep.  to  Galatians. 


Ixij  BPISTLB  TO  THE  ROMANS  [^  & 

Rom.  z.  5-8.  Eph.  tv.  7>ii. 

McDfffjt  yip  ypi<pu  Sri  r^  8(«bi*-  *b4  8)  U&aT^  ifuS^  ii6hi  4  X^ 

vivrfv  T7)v   («  v(i;(ov  4  iroirjffas  ofr-  card  tA  fiirpov  rijj  Soiptaf  rod  Xpiffrov. 

§po}wos  (TjfffTcu  ir   aurg.     ^   8i    l«  8id   X^7fi,  'Ava^ij  tit  Cipot  pXAto^^ 

wiarfui  SiKaioavyij  oCtcd  \iyti,  Mi^  t«vo-<i'  alxfia\o)aiav,  Kal  ISojKt  i6/MTa 

ttrr^ffs  iy  rp  icapS'uf  aov  T«  dva/S^-  Tory  avOpwnois.    (ri  Si  ^Avt^rj  rl  iortw 

ctToi  tli  riv  ovpav6v ;  (toCt'  tart,  •!  /i^  irt  «a2  Kari^r)  tU  rd  tcaTirrtpa 

Xpiarbv   Karayaytiv)   1j,  Tit  «ara-  >««p7  r^y    -y^t;    6  Karaffis  avrSs  <<m 

/3^(7crai    ftf    T^>'    d^vaaov  ;    (toCt*  «ai  i  dva^ds  vittpavw  vayra/y  rSiv  oiipa- 

tan,  Xptardy  iic  vfKpSjv  avayayuv.)  vSiv,  Xva  vXrjpuaj)  tA  w&yra.)    Koi  ovrdt 

dAAd  ri  Ktyd  ;   '£771^9  trov  to  fiijpuk  tSiMf  rovt  ^ir  iwoariKom  s.rJL 
jffriv,  ^f  Tf(  ardpari  aov  kclI  ir  r^ 
KapSi<f  aov  tovt'  tan  ri  fi^pui  r^t 
wlartcn  t  Kijpvaoon«p. 

Gal.  It.  «5-3i. 

Ti  8i  'hyap  2«vo  opot  IffriK  ir  rp  'Apa^ia,  avaroix*l  Vk  t^  rvr  *I(po»<7aXi^;r 

Jov\«i5(«  7(lp  f»«rd  rwv  TiKvoiv  air^y.  1)  8«  avo)  '\(povadKr)n  iKtvOipa  iariv, 
ijny  tarl  p'fjTjjp  -fjixSiv.  ylypavToi  yap,  Evipp&vBrjTi,  ariipa  1)  ov  riKTovaa  .  .  . 
^piitt  M,  aBe\(poi,  card  'laauK  inayytXias  Ttteva  ianiv.  dAX'  Siavtp  rSrt  i 
KaToi  a&pxa  ytw-qOtU  (S'tuKf  tov  Kord  Xlvtvpia,  ovtw  kuI  vvv.  aXKa  rl  \tytt 
^  ypaipij ;  'EK0a\t  r^v  iratSiaKTjv  Kal  rdy  vloy  airrjt,  ov  ydp  ff^  KXripovopriaf 
i  vlut  Trjs  vai5'iaKT}s  pLtra  rov  vlov  Tijt  iK(v$fpau  Si6,  i5f\(poi,  «S«  ioftiw 
maiiiaierjs  rlKva,  dXXd  t^s  iKtvOipat. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  work  out  the  comparison  of  this  passage  of 
Eph.  with  the  earlier  Epistles  phrase  by  phrase  (e.  g.  cp.  Eph.  iv.  7  with 
Rom.  xii.  3,6;  i  Cor.  xii.  1 1 ;  3  Cor.  x-  1 3) ;  but  to  do  this  would  be  really 
endless  and  would  have  too  remote  a  bearing  on  our  present  subject.  Enough 
will  have  been  said  both  to  show  the  individuality  of  style  in  Ep.  to  Romans ' 
and  also  to  show  its  place  in  connexion  with  the  range  of  style  in  the  Pauline 
Epi^.tlcs  generally,  as  seen  in  a  somewhat  extreme  example.  It  is  usual, 
especially  in  Germany,  to  take  Ep.  to  Romans  with  its  companion  Epistles 
•»  a  standard  of  style  for  the  whole  of  the  Corpus  Paulinum.  But  Bp.  Light- 
foot  has  pointed  out  that  this  is  an  error,  this  group  of  Epistles  having  been 
written  under  conditions  of  high  tension  which  in  no  writer  are  likely  to 
have  been  permanent.  '  Owing  to  their  greater  length  in  proportion  to  the 
rest,  it  is  probably  from  these  Epistles  that  we  get  our  general  impression  of 
St.  Paul's  style ;  yet  their  style  is  in  some  sense  an  exceptional  one,  called 
forth  by  peculiar  circumstances,  just  as  at  a  late  period  the  style  of  the 
Pastoral  Epistles  is  also  exceptional  though  in  a  different  way.  The  normal 
style  of  the  Apostle  is  rather  to  be  sought  for  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Theaia- 
lonians  and  those  of  the  Roman  captivity  '.' 

When  we  look  back  over  the  whole  of  the  data  the  impression 
which  they  leave  is  that  although  the  difference,  taken  at  its 
extremes,  is  no  doubt  considerable,  it  is  yet  sufl5ciently  bridged 
over.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  anywhere  so  great  as  to  necessitate 
the  assumption  of  different  authorship.  Even  though  any  single 
cause  would  hardly  be  enough  to  account  for  it,  there  may  quite 

^  Besides  the  passages  commented  upon  here,  reference  may  be  made  to  tbe 
narked  coincidences  l^tween  the  doxology,  Rom.  xv.  35-27,  and  Ep.  to 
Ephesians.  These  are  fully  pointed  out  ad  he.,  and  \bm  genuneneaa  of  A* 
doxology  is  defended  in  §  9  of  this  Introduction. 

•  Joum.  of  Class,  mttd  Satr.  PhiloL,  ut  sup.,  p.  302. 


$  7.]  THE  TEXT  Ixifi 

well  hare  been  a  concurrence  of  causes.  And  on  the  other  hand 
the  positive  reasons  for  supposing  that  the  two  Epistles  had  really 
the  same  author,  are  weighty  enough  to  support  the  conclusion. 
Between  the  limits  thus  set,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  phenomena  of 
style  in  the  Epistles  attributed  to  St  Paul  maj  be  nmged  without 
straining. 

f  7.    The  Text. 

(i)  Authorities.    The  authorities  quoted  for  the  Tarions  readings 

to  the  text  of  the  Epistle  are  taken  directly  from  Tischendorf's 
great  collection  {Nov.  Test.  Graec.  vol.  ii.  ed.  8,  Lipsiae,  1872), 
with  some  verification  of  the  Patristic  testimony.  For  a  fuller 
account  of  these  authorities  the  student  must  be  referred  to  the 
Prolegomena  to  Tischendorf's  edition  (mainly  the  work  of  Dr.  C.  R. 
Gregory,  1884,  1890,  1894),  and  to  the  latest  edition  of  Scrivener's 
Introduction  (ed.  Miller,  London,  1894).  They  may  be  briefly 
enumerated  as  follows : 

(i)    Greek  Manusckiptb. 

Primary  uncials. 

M  Cod.  Sinaiticus,  saec.  iv.     Brought  by  Tischendorf  from  the 
Convent  of  St.  Catherine  on  Mt.  Sinai ;  now  at  St  Petersburg. 
Contains  the  whole  Epistle  complete. 
Its  correctors  are 
W  contemporary,  or  nearly  so,  and  representing  a  second 

MS.  of  high  value; 
M*  attributed  by  Tischendorf  to  saec.  vi ; 
M*  attributed  to  the  beginning  of  saec.  vii.     Two  hands  of 

about  this  date  are  sometimes  distinguished  as  t>)<*  and 

Neb. 

A.  Cod.  Alexandrinus,  saec.  ▼.  Once  in  the  Patriarchal  Library 
at  Alexandria ;  sent  by  Cyril  Lucar  as  a  present  to  Charles  I 
in  1628,  and  now  in  the  British  Museum.    Complete. 

B.  Cod.  Vaticanus,  saec.  iv.    In  the  Vatican  Library  certainly 

since   1533^  (Batiffol,  La   Vaticam  de  Paul  Hi  a  Paul  v, 
p.  86).     Complete. 

The  corrector  B'  is  nearly  d  the  same  date  and  used 
a  good  copy,  though  not  quite  so  good  as  the  original 
Some  six  centuries  later  the  faded  characters  were  re- 
traced, and  a  few  new  readings  introduced  by  B'. 
C    Cod.  Ephraemi  Rescriptus,  saec.  v.    In  the  National  Library 
at  Paris.     Contains  the  whole  Epistle,  with  the  exception  of 
the  following  passages :  ii  5   ko^o.  dc  n^v  .  .  .  vnh  row  vd/ww 

*  Dr.  Gr^ory  would  carry  back  the  evidence  further,  to  1531  {Fr^Ug. 
p.  360),  bat  M.  Batiffol  eould  find  no  trace  of  the  MS.  in  the  earlier  ObU. 


Ixiv  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  7. 

iiL  SI  ;  ix.  6  ovy  oTov  .  ,  .  4ip  X.  15  :  Zi.  31  ^ti]3riaap  Tf 
.  .  .  nXfipcofia  xiii.  10. 

D.  Cod,  Claromontanus,  sacc.   vi     Graeco-Latinus.     Once  at 

Clermont,  near  Beauvais  (if  the  statement  of  Beza  is  to  be 
trusted),  now  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris.  Contains  the 
Pauline  Epistles,  but  Rom.  i.  i,  llavXoj  .  .  .  dyaTrrjrolt  Qtoii 
L  7>  is  missing,  and  i.  27  t^fKavdrja-av  .  .  .  «</)cvprrat  KOKov  i.  30 
^n  the  Latin  i.  24-27)  is  supplied  by  a  later  hand. 

E.  Cod.  Sangermanensis,  saec.  ix.     Graeco-Latinus.     Formerly 

at  St.  Geimain-des-Pr^s,  now  at  St.  Petersburg.  [This  MS. 
might  well  be  allowed  to  drop  out  of  the  list,  as  it  is  nothing 
more  than  a  faulty  copy  of  D.] 

F.  Cod.  Augiensis,  saec.  ix.  Graeco-Latinus.    Bought  by  Bentley 

in  Germany,  and  probably  written  at  Reichenau  {Augt'a 
Major);  now  in  the  Library  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
Rom.  i.  I  DaOXot  .  .  .  fv  ra  v6[^^'\  iii.  19  is  missing,  both 
in  the  Greek  and  Latin  texts. 

G.  Cod.  Boernerianus,  saec.  ix  ex.     Graeco-Latinus.     Written  at 

St.  Gall,  now  at  Dresden.  Rom.  i.  i  a^wpio-^^Vo*  .  . ,  niarfw 
i.  5,  and  ii.  16  ra  Kpvnrh  .  .  .  v6iJLov  §s  ii.  25  are  missing. 
Originally  formed  part  of  the  same  MS.  with  A  (Cod.  San- 
gallensis)  of  the  Gospels. 

It  has  been  suggested  by  Tranbe  (Wattenbach,  Anleitung  tttr  Gritch. 

Paldographie,  ed.  3,  1895,  p.  41)  that  this  MS.  wai  written  by  the  game 
hand  as  a  well-known  Psalter  in  the  library  of  the  Arsenal  at  Paris  which 
bears  the  signature  Xr\bv\ioi  Xkottos  tydi  eypaipa.  The  resemblance  of  the 
handwriting  is  close,  as  may  be  seen  by  comparing  the  facsimile  of  the  Paris 
Psalter  published  by  Omont  in  the  Milanges  Graux,  p.  313,  with  that  of  the 
St.  Gall  Gospels  in  the  Palaeographical  Society's  series  (i.  pi.  179).  This 
fact  naturally  raises  the  further  question  whether  the  writer  of  the  MS.  of 
St.  Paul's  Epistles  is  not  al^o  to  be  identified  with  the  compiler  of  the  com- 
mentary entitled  Collectanea  in  omnes  B.  Pauli  Epistolas  Migne,  Patrol. 
Lot.  ciii.  9-128),  which  is  also  ascribed  to  a  '  Sedulius  Scotus.'  The  answer 
must  be  in  the  negative.  The  commentary  presents  no»e  of  the  charac- 
teristic readings  of  the  MS.,  and  appears  to  represent  a  higher  grade  of 
scholarship.  It  is  more  probable  that  the  scribe  belonged  to  the  fratnt 
kellenUi  who  formed  a  sort  of  guild  in  the  monastery  of  St.  Gall  (see  the 
authorities  quoted  in  Caspari,  Qutllen  turn  Taufsymbol,  iii.  475  n,  and 
compare  Bcrger,  Histoire  de  la  Vulgatt,  p.  137).  There  are  several  instances 
of  the  name  '  Sedulius  Scotus '  (^Migne,  P.  L.  ut  suf.). 

It  should  be  noted  that  of  these  MSS.  l^  A  B  C  are  parts  of  what 
were  once  complete  Bibles,  and  are  designated  by  the  same  letter 
throughout  the  LXX  and  Greek  Testament ;  D  E  F  G  are  all 
Graeco-Latin,  and  are  different  MSS.  from  those  which  bear  the 
same  notation  on  the  Gospels  and  Acts.  In  Westcott  and  Hort's 
Introduction  they  are  distinguished  as  D^  E,  F,  G,.  An  important 
MS.,  Cod.  Coislinianus  (H  or  H,),  which,  however,  exists  only  in 
fragments,  is  unfortunately  wanting  for  this  Epistle  ;  see  below. 


§  7.]  THE  TEXT  IXV 

Secondary  tmcialt. 

K.  Cod.  Mofqnensii,  laee.  ix.  Brought  to  Moscow  from  the  monastery  ol 
St.  Dionysius  on  Mount  Athos.  Contains  Acts,  Epp.  Cath.,  Epp.  Paul. 
Rom.  X.  1 8  aXXcL  Kiyw  to  the  end  is  missing. 

L.  Cod.  Angelicus,  saec  ix.  In  the  Angelican  Library  of  the  Augustinian 
monks  at  Rome.  Contains  Acts,  Epp.  Cath.,  Epp.  Paul.  Romans  com- 
plete. 

P.  Cod.  Porphyrianns,  saec  ix  In.  A  palimpsest  brought  from  the  East  by 
Tischendorf  and  called  after  its  present  owner  Bishop  Porphyry.  Contain! 
Acts,  Epp.  Cath.,  Epp.  Paul.,  Apoc.  Rom.  ii.  15  [inoXo'yov'jixtyaiy  . .  . 
^  dSiKia  fjlijuvvl  iii.  5  ;  viii.  35  @e6t  i  iiKaiwv  .  .  .  iva  ^  «a[T'  tK\oyrir'\ 
ix.  II ;  xi.  3  2  xal  dvoTOfiiav  .  .  .  Ovaiav  xii.  I  are  missing. 

S.  Cod.  Athous  Laurae,  saec.  viii-ix.  In  the  monastery  Laura  on  Mount 
Athos.  Contains  Acts,  Epp.  Cath.,  Epp.  PauL  Romans  complete.  This 
MS.  has  not  yet  been  collated. 

X.  Cod.  Patiriensis,  saec.  ▼.  Formerly  belonging  to  the  Basilian  monks 
of  the  abbey  of  Sta.  Maria  de  lo  Patire  near  Rossano,  now  in  the 
Vatican.  There  is  some  reason  to  think  that  the  MS.  may  have  come 
originally  from  Constantinople  {cf.  Batiffol,  VAbbayt  de  Rossano,  pp.  6, 
79  and  62,  71-74).  Twenty-one  palimpsest  leaves,  containing  portions 
of  Acts,  Epp.  Cath.,  Epp.  Paul.  These  include  Rom.  xiii.  4-xv.  9. 
A  study  of  readings  from  this  MS.  is  pablished  in  the  Etvus  Bibliqtu 
for  April,  1895. 

Minuscules. 

A  few  only  of  the  leading  minuscules  can  be  given, 
g.     (=  Ew.  5,  Act.  5),  saec.  xiv.     At  Paris ;  at  one  time  ia  Calabria. 
17,     («■  Ew.   33,   Act.    13),   saec.   ix   (Omont,  ix-x  Gregory).      At  Paris. 

Called  by  Eichhom  '  the  queen  of  cursives.* 
ji.     (—Act.  35,  Apoc  7).     Written  1087  a.d.     Belonged  to  John  Covell, 
English   chaplain  at  Constantinople  about  1675 ;    now  in  the  British 
Museum. 
3a.     (  —  Act.  36),  saec  xii.     Has  a  similar  history  to  the  last. 
37.     (^■"  Ew.  69,  Act  31,  Apoc.  14),  saec.  xv.     The  well-known  '  Leicestei 
MS.' ;  one  of  the    Ferrar  group,'  the  archetype  of  which  was  probably 
written  in  Calabria. 
47.    Saec  xi.    Now  in  the  Bodleian,  but  at  one  time  belonged  to  the  monas- 
tery of  the  Holy  Trinity  on  the  island  of  Chalcis. 
67.     ("Act.  66,  Apoc.  34),  saec.  xi.     Now  at  Vienna:  at  one  time  in  the 
possession  of  Arsenius,  archbishop  of  Monemvasia  in  Epidaurus.     The 
marginal  corrector  (67**)  drew  from  a  MS.  containing  many  peculiar 
and  ancient  readings  akin  to  those  of  M  Paul.,  which  is  not  extant  for 
Ep.  to  Romans. 
71.     Saec  x-xi.     At  Vienna.    Thought  to  have  been  written  in  Calabria. 
80.     (—  Act.  73),  saec.  xi.    In  the  Vatican. 

93.    (-■  Act.  83,  Apoc.  99),  saec.  xii  (Gregory),     At  Naples.    Said  to  have 
been  compared  with  a  MS.  of  Pamphilus,  bnt  as  yet  collated  only  ia 
a  few  places. 
137.     (—Ew.  363,  Act.  117),  saec.  xiii-xir.     At  Paris. 

353.     (Gregory,  260  Scrivener  —  Ew  489.   Greg.,  507  Scriv. ;  Act.  195  Greg., 
334  Scriv.).     In  the  library  of  Trin.  Coll.,  Cambridge.     Written  on 
Mount  Sinai  in  the  year  1316. 
These  MSS.  are  partly  those  which  have  been  noticed  as  giving  con- 
spicuous readings  in  the  commentary,  partly  those  on  which  stress  is  laid 
by  Hort  {Introd.  p.  166),  and  partly  those  which  Boosset  connects  wit}»  hit 
*Codia.  Pamphili   (se*  below). 


Ixvi  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMAMS  £|  1 

(>)  VnsiOMt. 
The  Tcrsions  quoted  are  the  following : 
The  Latin  (Latt.). 

The  Vetus  Latina  (Lat  V«t^ 

The  Vulgate  (Vulg.). 
The  Egyptian  (Aegypt). 

The  Bohairic  (Boh.)^ 

The  Sahidic  (Sah.). 
The  Syriac  (Syrr.). 

The  Peshitto  (Pesh.). 

The  Harclean  (HarcLy. 
The  Armenian  (Arm.). 
The  Gothic  (Goth.). 
The  Ethiopic  (Aeth.). 

Of  these  the  Vct«s  Latina  is  rery  Imperfectly  preserved  te  M.  W« 
posseu  only  a  imall  number  of  fragments  of  MSS.     Tlieat  are  : 

gae.   Cod.  Gael  ferby tanas,  saec.  vi,  which  contains  fragments  of  Rom.  ll 

33-'"»-  5;  «>•  17-""-  5  ;  »!▼•  9-20;  XT.  3-1  J. 
r.  Cod.  Frisingensis.  saec.  ▼  or  tI,  containing  Rom.  zIt.  io-xt.  1%. 
tf  Cod.    Gottvicensis,  saec  vi  or  vii,  containing    Rom.  ▼.    i^vL  41 
▼i  6-19. 

The  texts  of  these  fragments  are,  howerer,  neither  early  (relatiyely  to  the 
history  of  the  Version)  nor  of  much  interest  To  supplement  them  we  havt 
Jie  Latin  versions  of  the  bilingual  MSS.  D  E  F  G  mentioned  above,  usually 
quoted  as  d  e  f  g,  and  quotations  in  the  Latin  Fathers.  The  former  do  not 
strictly  represent  the  underlying  Greek  of  the  Version,  as  they  are  too  much 
conformed  to  their  own  Greek,  d  (as  necessarily  e)  follows  an  Old-Latin  text 
not  in  all  cases  altered  to  suit  the  Greek ;  g  is  based  on  the  Old  Latin 
but  is  very  much  modified ;  f  is  the  Vulgate  translation,  altered  with  the 
help  of  g  or  a  MS.  closely  akin  to  g.  For  the  Fathers  we  are  mainly 
indebted  to  the  quotations  in  Tertullian  (saec.  ii-iii),  Cyprian  (saec.  iii), 
the  Latin  Irenaeus  (saec.  ii,  or  more  probably  iv),  Hilary  of  Poitiers  (saea 
iv),  and  to  the  so-called  Speculum  S.  Augustini  (cited  as  m),  a  Spanish 
text  also  of  the  fourth  century  isee  below,  p.  134). 

One  or  two  specimens  are  given  in  the  course  of  the  commentary  of  the 
evidence  furnished  by  the  Old-Latin  Version  (see  on  i.  30 ;  v.  3-5  ;  viii.  36), 
which  may  also  serve  to  illustrate  the  problems  raised  in  connexion  with  the 
history  of  the  Version.  They  have  however  more  to  do  with  the  changes 
in  the  Latin  diction  of  the  Version  than  with  its  text.  The  fullest  treat- 
ment of  the  Vitus  Latina  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  will  be  found  in  Ziegler, 
Die  lateinischen  Bibeliibersetzungen  vor  Hieronymus,  Miinchen,  1879; 
bat  the  subject  has  not  as  yet  t)een  sufficiently  worked  at  for  a  genera] 
agreement  to  be  reached. 
For  the  Vulgate  the  following  MSS.  arc  occasionally  <iaoted : 

am.    Cod.  Amiatinus  c.  700  A.  D. 

fuld.  Cod.  Fuldensis  e.  546  A.  D. 

karl.  British  Museum  Harl.  1775.    Saec.  vi  or  viL 

tol.  Cod.  Toletanus.     Saec.  z,  or  rather  perhapa  viii  (te*  Bcfgvr,  Bi^ 
Uirt  it  Im  Vulgate,  p.  14). 
The  Vulgate  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  is  a  revision  of  the  Old  Latin  so  iligfat 
■Bd  cnisoiy  as  to  be  hardly  an  independent  authority.    It  was  bowe«er  mm 


§7.] 


THE  TEXT  IxvU 


with  die  help  of  the  Greek  MSS^  and  we  have  the  express  statement  of 
St.  Terome  himself  that  in  Rom.  xii.  i  r  he  substituted  Domino  servientet 
for  Umpori  urvientes  of  the  older  Version  {Ep.  xxvii.  3  ad  Marcellam). 
Wa  gather  from  this  letter  that  Jerome's  edition  had  been  issued  in  the  year 
185  A.  D. 

Of  the  Egyptian  Versions,  Bohairic  is  that  usually  known  as  Memphitic 
(—  •  mc'  WH.)  and  cited  by  Tisch.  as  *  Coptic '  ('  cop.').  For  the  reasons 
which  make  It  correct  to  describe  it  as  Bohairic  see  Scrivener,  Introd.  ii.  106, 
cd.  4.  It  is  usually  cited  according  to  Tischendorf  (who  appears  in  the 
Epistles  to  have  followed  Wilkins;  see  Tisch.  N.T.  p.  ccxxxiv,  ed.  7),  but 
in  some  few  instances  on  referring  to  the  original  it  has  become  clear  that 
his  quotations  cannot  always  be  trusted:  see  the  notes  on  v.  6 ;  viii.  28; 
s.  5 ;  ztL  37.  This  suggests  that  not  only  a  fresh  edition  of  the  text,  but 
also  a  fresh  collation  with  the  Greek,  is  much  needed. 

In  the  Sahidic  (Thebaic)  Version  (  =  'sah.'  Tisch.,  'the.'  WH.)  some 
few  readings  have  been  added  from  the  fragments  published  by  Amelineau 
In  the  ZtUuhrift  fur  Aigypt.  Spracht,  1887.  These  fragments  contain  vi. 
•o-a3 ;  Tii.  i-ai  ;  viii.  15-38  ;  11.  7-23  ;  xi.  31-36;  xii.  1-9. 

The  reader  may  be  reminded  that  the  Peshitto  Syriac  was  certainly  current 
mach  in  its  present  form  early  in  the  fourth  century.  How  much  earlier 
than  this  it  was  in  use,  and  what  amount  of  change  it  had  previously  under- 
gone, are  questions  still  being  debated.  In  any  case,  there  is  no  other  form 
of  the  Version  extant  for  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

The  Harclean  Syriac  (-■  'syr.  p[osterior]  '  Tisch.,  'hi.'  WH.^  is  a  re- 
OCnsien  made  bj  the  Monophysite  Thomas  of  Harkhel  or  Heraclea  in  616 
A.  D.,  of  the  older  Fhiloxenian  Version  of  508  a.  D.,  which  for  this  j>art 
of  the  N.T.  is  now  lost  A  special  importance  attaches  to  the  readings, 
sometimes  In  the  text  but  more  often  in  the  margin,  which  appear  to  be 
derived  frx>m  '  three  (v.  L  two)  approved  and  accurate  Greek  copies '  in  the 
■tonastety  of  the  Enaton  near  Alexandria  (WH.  Introd.  p.  156  f ). 

The  Gothic  Version  is  also  definitely  dated  at  about  the  middle  of  the 
fimuth  century,  and  the  Armenian  at  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth.  The  dates 
of  the  two  Egyptian  Versions  and  of  the  Ethiopic  are  still  uncertain 
(Scrivener,  Introd.  ii.  105  f.,  154,  ed.  4).  It  is  of  more  importance  to  know 
that  the  types  of  text  which  they  represent  are  in  any  case  early,  the 
Egyptian  somewhat  the  older. 

The  abbreviations  in  references  to  the  Patristic  writings  are  sach  as  it  is 
hoped  will  cause  no  difficulty  (but  see  p.  ex). 

(j)  Internal  Grouping  0/ Authorities.  The  most  promising  and 
successful  of  all  the  directions  in  which  textual  criticism  is  being 
pursued  at  this  moment  is  that  of  isolating  comparatively  small 
groups  of  authorities,  and  investigating  their  mutual  relations  and 
origin.  For  the  Pauline  Episdes  the  groups  most  affected  by 
recent  researches  are  J-^B ;  ^^cjj,  Arm.,  Euthal.,  and  in  less  degree 
a  number  of  minuscules ;  D  [£]  F  G. 

The  proofs  seem  to  be  thickening  which  connect  these  two  great  MSS 
with  the  library  of  Eusebius  and  Pamphilus  at  Caesarea.  That  is  a  view 
which  has  been  held  for  some  time  past  (e.  g.  by  the  late  Canon  Cook, 
Rtvised  Version  of  the  First  Three  Gospels,  p,  159  ff. ;  and  Dr.  Scrivener, 
Collation  of  Cod.  Sinaiticus,  p.  xxxvii  f.),  but  without  resting  upon  any  very 
solid  arguments.  And  it  must  always  be  remembered  that  so  excellent 
a  palaeographer  as  Dr.  Ceriani  of  Milan  {ap.  Scrivener,  Introd.  i.  121,  ed.  4) 
thooeht  that  B  was  written  in  Italy  (Magna  Graeda),  and  that  Dr.  Hori 


Ixviii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  % 

also  gives  some  reasons  for  ascribing  an  Italian  origin  to  this  MS.     We  an 

however  confronted  by  the  fact  that  there  is  a  distinct  probability  that  both 
MSS.  if  they  were  not  written  in  the  same  place  had  at  least  in  part  the  same 
scribes.     It  was  first  pointed  out  by  Tischendorf  (JV.  T.  Vat.,  Lipsiae,  1867, 

Ep.  xxi  xxiii),  on  grounds  which  seem  to  be  safficient,  that  the  writer  whom 
e  calls  the  '  fourth  scribe  '  of  N  wrote  also  the  N.T.  portion  of  B.  And,  as 
it  has  been  said,  additional  arguments  are  becoming  available  for  connecting 
K  with  the  library  at  Caesarea  (see  Rendel  Harris,  Stichonutry,  p.  71  ff. ; 
and  the  essay  of  Bonsset  referred  to  below). 

The  provenance  of  K  would  only  carry  with  it  approximately  and  not 
exactly  that  of  B.  The  conditions  would  be  satisfied  if  it  were  possible,  or 
not  cUfiicult,  for  the  same  Fcribe  to  have  a  hand  in  both.  For  instance,  the 
view  that  K  had  its  origiii  in  Palestine  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  the 
older  vi(;w,  recently  revived  and  defended  by  Bousset,  that  B  was  an  Egyp- 
tian MS.  There  would  be  so  much  coming  and  going  between  Palestine 
and  Egypt,  especially  among  the  followers  of  Origen,  that  they  would  belong 
▼irtuully  to  the  same  region.  But  when  Herr  Bousset  goes  further  and  main- 
tains that  the  text  of  B  represents  the  recension  of  Hesychins ',  that  is  another 
matter,  and  as  it  seems  to  us,  at  least  prima  facie,  by  no  means  probable. 
The  text  of  B  must  needs  be  older  than  the  end  of  the  third  century,  which  is 
the  date  assigned  to  Hesychius.  If  we  admit  that  the  MS.  may  be  Egyptian, 
it  is  only  as  one  amongst  several  possibilities.  Nothing  can  as  yet  be 
regarded  as  proved. 

Apart  from  such  external  data  as  coincidences  of  handwriting  which  con- 
nect the  two  MSS.  as  they  have  come  down  to  us  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
they  had  also  a  common  ancestor  far  back  in  the  past.  The  weight  which 
their  agreement  carries  does  not  depend  on  the  independence  of  their  testi- 
mony so  much  as  upon  its  early  date.  That  the  date  of  their  common 
readings  is  in  fact  extremely  early  appears  to  be  proved  by  the  number  of 
readings  in  which  they  differ,  these  divergent  readings  being  shared  not  by 
any  means  always  by  the  same  but  by  a  great  variety  of  other  authorities. 
From  this  variety  it  may  be  inferred  that  between  the  point  of  divergence 
of  the  ancestors  of  the  two  MSS.  and  the  actual  MSS.  the  fortunes  of  each 
had  been  quite  distinct.  Not  only  on  a  single  occasion,  but  on  a  number  of 
successive  occasions,  new  strains  of  text  have  been  introduced  on  one  or 
other  of  the  lines.  K  especially  has  received  several  side  streams  in  the 
course  of  its  history,  now  of  the  colour  which  we  call  '  Western '  and  now 
'Alexandrian';  and  B  also  (as  we  shall  see)  in  the  Pauline  Epistles  has 
a  clear  infusion  of  Western  readings.  It  is  possible  that  all  these  may  have 
come  in  from  a  single  copy ;  but  it  is  less  likely  that  all  the  '  Western '  or 
all  the  'Alexandrian'  readings  which  are  found  in  K  had  a  single  origin. 
Indeed  the  history  of  K  since  it  was  written  does  but  reflect  the  history  of 
its  ancestry.  We  have  only  to  suppose  the  corrections  of  N*  embodied  in 
the  text  of  one  MS.,  then  those  of  K''  first  inserted  in  the  margin  and  then 
embodied  in  the  text  of  a  succeeding  MS.,  then  those  of  K^  in  a  third  and 
K**"  in  a  fourth,  to  form  a  mental  picture  of  the  process  by  which  our  present 
MS.  became  what  it  is.  It  remains  for  critical  analysis  to  reconstruct  this 
process,  to  pick  to  pieces  the  difTereat  elements  of  which  the  text  or  the 
MS.  consists,  to  arrange  them  in  their  order  and  determine  their  affinities. 
This  analysis  will  doubtless  be  carried  further  than  it  has  been. 

K'^H,  Arm.,  Euthal, 

A  number  of  scholars  working  on  55  have  thrown  out  suggestions  which 
would  tend  to  group  together  these  authorities,  and  possibly  to  bring  them 

'  A  similar  view  is  held  by  Corssen.  He  regards  the  modem  text  based  on 
K  B  as  nur  ein  Spiegelbild  einer  willkiirlich  jixierten  Kuension  dei  vierttm 
Jahrhunderts  \D*r  Cyprianisch€  Textd.  Acta  Apostolorum,  Berlin,  189a,  p.  24). 


^7.] 


THE    TEXT  Ixix 


into  some  further  connexion  with  S?  B.  The  MS.  H  Paul,  (unfortunately, 
as  we  have  said,  not  extant  for  Romans)  bears  upon  its  face  the  traces  of 
its  connexion  with  the  library  of  Caesarea,  as  the  subscription  to  Ep.  to  Titus 
states  expressly  that  the  MS.  was  corrected  'with  the  copy  at  Caesarea  in 
the  library  of  the  holy  Pamphilus  written  with  his  own  hand.'  Now  in  June, 
1893,  Dr.  Rendel  Harris  pointed  out  a  connexion  between  this  MS.  H  Paul, 
and  Euthalius  {Sfic/uv/ietry,  p.  88).  This  had  also  been  noticed  by  Dr.  P. 
Corssen  in  the  second  of  the  two  programmes  cited  below  (p.  12).  Early  in 
1894  Herr  W.  Bousset  brought  out  in  Gebhardt  and  Harnack's  Tcxtc  u.  iln- 
tersuchungen  a  series  of  Text-kritische  Studien  zuin  iV.  7'.,  in  the  course 
of  which  (without  any  concert  with  Dr.  Rendel  Harris,  but  perhaps  with 
fome  knowledge  of  Corssen)  he  not  wlj  addaoed  further  evidence  of  this 
connexion,  bat  also  brought  into  the  gronp  the  third  corrector  cf  K  (K°). 
A  note  at  the  end  of  the  Book  of  Esther  said  to  be  by  his  band  speaks 
in  graphic  terms  of  a  MS.  corrected  by  the  Hexapla  of  Origen,  com- 
pared by  Antoninus  a  confessor,  and  corrected  by  Pampbilas  '  in  prison ' 
(i.  e.  just  before  his  death  in  the  persecution  of  Diocletian).  Attention  had 
often  been  drawn  to  this  note,  but  Herr  Bousset  was  the  first  to  make  the 
fall  use  of  it  which  it  deserved.  He  found  on  examination  that  the  presump- 
tion raised  by  it  was  verified  and  that  there  was  a  real  and  close  connexion 
between  the  readings  of  N"  and  those  of  H  and  Euthalius  which  were  inde- 
pendently associated  with  Pamphilus*.  Lastly,  to  complete  the  series  of 
novel  and  striking  observations,  Mr.  F.  C.  Conybeare  comes  forward  in  the 
current  number  of  the  Journal  »/  Philology  (no.  46,  iSgs")  and  maintains 

•  farther  connexion  of  the  group  with  the  Armenian  Version.  These 
researches  are  at  present  in  full  swing,  and  will  doubtless  lead  by  degrees 
to  more  or  less  definite  results.  The  essays  which  have  been  mentioned 
•11  contain  tome  more  speculative  matter  in  addition  to  what  has  been 
mentioned,  but  it  is  also  probable  that  they  have  a  certain  amount  of  solid 
nucleus.  It  is  only  just  what  we  should  have  expected.  The  library 
founded  by  Pamphilus  at  Caesarea  was  the  greatest  and  most  lamous  oi 
all  the  book-collections  in  the  early  Christian  centuries ;  it  was  also  the 
greatest  centre  of  literary  and  copying  activity  just  at  the  moment  when 
Christianity  received  its  greatest  expansion ;  the  prestige  not  only  oi 
Eusebius  and  Pamphilus,  but  of  the  still  more  potent  name  (for  some  time 
yet  to  come)  of  Origen,  attached  to  it.  It  would  have  been  strange  if  it  had 
not  been  consulted  from  far  and  wide  and  if  the  infinence  of  it  were  not  felt 
in  many  parts  of  Christendom. 

D  F  G,  Goth. 

Not  only  is  E  a  mere  copy  of  D,  but  there  is  a  Tery  close  relation  between 
F  and  G,  especially  in  the  Greek.  It  is  not  as  yet  absolutely  determined 
what  that  relation  is.  In  an  essay  written  in  1871  (reprinted  in  Lightfoot 
Biblical  Essays,  p.  331  ff.)  Dr.  Hort  states  his  opinion  that  F  Greek  is  a  direct 
copy  of  G,  F  Latin  a  Vulgate  text  partly  assimilated  to  the  Greek  and  with 
intrusive  readings  from  the  Latin  of  G.  Later  \Introd.  p.  150)  he  writes 
that  F  is  'as  certainly  in  its  Greek  text  a  transcript  of  G  as  E  of  D  :  if  not 
it  is  an  inferior  copy  of  the  same  immediate  exemplar.'  This  second  alterna- 
tive is  the  older  view,  adopted  by  Scrivener  {Introd.  p.  181,  ed.  3)  and 
maintained  with  detailed  arguments  in  two  elaborate  programmes  by 
Dr.  P.  Corssen  (.£//.  Paulin.  Codd.  Aug.  Botm.  Clarom^  1887  and  1889). 

*  Since  the  above  was  written  all  speculations  on  the  subject  of  Euthalius 
have  been  superseded  by  Prof.  Armitage  Robinson's  admirable  essay  in  Texts 
and  Studies,  iii.  3.  Both  the  text  of  Euthalius  and  that  of  the  Codex  Pa/ii- 
phili  are  ^ewn  to  be  as  yet  very  Uncertain  quantities.  Still  it  is  probable  that 
the  authorities  in  question  are  really  connected,  and  that  there  are  elements  in 
their  text  which  may  be  traceable  to  Euthalius  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Cae- 
sarean  library  on  the  other. 


Ixx  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [$  1 

We  are  not  rare  tbat  the  question  can  ctUl  bt  r^arded  m  settled  in  ddi 

sense,  and  that  Dr.  Hort's  original  view  is  not  to  be  preferred.  Dr.  Corssea 
admits  that  there  are  some  phenomena  which  he  cannot  explain  (1887,  p.  13). 
These  would  fall  naturally  into  their  place  if  F  Gk.  is  a  copy  of  G ;  and  the 
arguments  on  the  other  sicie  do  not  seem  to  be  decisive.  In  any  case  it 
should  be  remembered  that  F  Gk.  and  G  Gk.  are  practically  one  witness  and 
not  two. 

Dr.  Corssen  reached  a  number  of  other  interesting  conclnsions.  Examining 
the  common  element  in  D  F  G  he  showed  that  they  were  ultimately  derived 
from  a  single  archetype  (Z),  and  that  this  archetype  was  written  p«r  cola  tt 
(omtnata,  or  in  clauses  corresponding  to  the  sense  (sometimes  called 
OTi\oi),  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Palaeographical  Society's  facsimile  of  D 
(ser.  i.  pi.  63,  64).  Here  again  we  have  another  coincidence  of  inde- 
pendent workers,  for  in  1891  Dr.  Rendel  Harris  carrying  further  a  suggestion 
of  Rettig's  had  thrown  out  the  opinion,  that  not  only  did  the  same  system  of 
colometiy  lie  behind  Cod.  A  Ew.  (the  other  half,  as  we  remember,  of 
G  Paul.)  and  D  Ew.  Act  (Cod.  Bezae,  which  holds  a  like  place  in  the 
Gospel  and  Acts  to  D  Paul.),  but  that  it  also  extended  to  the  other  impor- 
tant  Old-Latin  MS.  k  ^Cod.  Bobiensis),  and  even  to  the  Coretonian  Syriac 
— to  which  we  suppose  may  now  be  added  the  Sinai  palimpsest  If  that 
were  so — and  indeed  without  this  additional  evidence — Dr.  Corssen  probably 
puts  the  limit  too  late  when  he  says  that  such  a  MS.  is  not  likely  to  have 
been  written  before  the  time  of  St.  Chrysostom,  or  407  a.  d. 

Thus  Dr.  Corssen  thinks  tliat  there  arose  early  in  the  fifth  centnt^ 
a  '  Graeco- Latin  edition,*  the  Latin  of  which  was  more  in  agreement  witA 
Victorinus  Ambrosiaster  and  the  Spanish  Speculum.  For  the  inter-connexion 
of  this  group  he  adduces  a  striking  instance  from  i  Cor.  xiii.  i ;  and  he 
argues  that  the  locality  in  which  it  arose  was  more  probably  Italy  than 
Africa.  As  to  the  place  of  origin  we  are  more  inclined  to  agree  witli  him 
than  as  to  the  date,  though  the  Speculum  contains  an  African  element  He 
then  points  out  that  this  Graeco-Latin  edition  has  affinities  with  the  Gothic 
Version.  The  edition  did  not  contain  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  and  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  it  ended  at  Rom.  zv.  14  (see  §  9  below) ;  it  was 
entirely  without  the  doxology  (Rom.  xvi.  35-37). 

Dr.  Corssen  thinks  that  this  Graeco-Latin  edition  has  undergone  tome 
correction  in  D  by  comparison  with  Greek  MSB.  and  therefore  that  it  is  in 
psot  more  correctly  preserved  in  G,  which  however  in  its  turn  can  only  l>e 
nsed  for  reconstructing  it  with  caution. 

Like  all  that  Dr.  Corssen  writes  this  sketch  is  raggestive  and  likely  to  bt 
fruitful,  though  we  cannot  express  our  entire  agreement  with  it  We  only 
regret  that  we  cannot  undertake  here  the  systematic  inquiry  which  certainly 
ought  to  be  made  into  the  history  of  this  group.  The  lines  which  it  should 
follow  would  be  something  of  this  kind,  (i)  It  should  reconstruct  as  far  as 
possible  the  common  archetype  of  D  and  G.  (ii)  It  should  isolate  the 
peculiar  element  in  both  MSS.  and  distinguish  between  earlier  and  later 
readings.  The  instances  ia  which  the  Greek  has  been  conformed  to  tlie  Latin 
will  probably  be  found  to  be  late  and  of  little  real  importance,  (iii)  The 
peculiar  and  ancient  readings  in  Gg  should  be  carefully  collected  and 
studied.  An  opportunity  might  be  found  of  testing  more  closely  the  hypo- 
thesis propounded  in  §  9  oi  this  Introduction,  (iv)  The  relations  of  tb* 
Gothic  Version  to  the  group  should  be  determined  as  accurately  as  possible. 
(t)  The  characteristics  both  of  D  and  of  the  archetype  of  DG  should  be 
compared  with  those  of  Cod.  Bezae  and  the  Old-Latin  MSS.  of  tlM  Goq>elf 
and  Acts. 

(3)  Thf  Textual  Criticism  of  Epistle  t9  Ronuau.     The  textual 
criticism  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  generally  is  inferior  in  interest  te 


f  7.]  THB  TEXT  bad 

diat  of  the  Historical  Books  of  the  New  Testament  When  this  if 
said  it  is  not  meant  that  investigations  such  as  those  outlined  above 
are  not  full  of  attraction,  and  in  their  way  full  of  promise.  Any- 
thing which  throws  new  light  on  the  history  of  the  text  will  be  found 
in  the  end  to  throw  new  Ught  on  the  history  of  Christianity.  But 
what  is  meant  is  that  the  textual  phenomena  are  less  marked,  and 
have  a  less  distinctive  and  individual  character. 

This  may  be  due  to  two  causes,  both  of  which  have  really  been 
at  work.  On  the  one  hand,  the  latitude  of  variation  was  probably 
never  from  the  first  so  great ;  and  on  the  other  hand  the  evidence 
which  has  come  down  to  us  is  inferior  both  in  quantity  and  quality, 
so  that  there  are  parts  of  the  history— and  those  just  the  most 
interesting  parts — which  we  cannot  reconstruct  simply  for  want  of 
material.  A  conspicuous  instance  of  both  conditions  is  supplied 
by  the  state  of  what  is  called  the  '  Western  Text'  It  is  probable 
that  this  text  never  diverged  from  the  other  branches  so  widely  as 
it  does  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts;  and  just  for  that  section  of  it 
which  diverged  most  we  have  but  little  evidence.  For  the  oldest 
forms  of  this  text  we  are  reduced  to  the  quotations  in  Tertullian 
and  Cyprian.  We  have  nothing  like  the  best  of  the  Old-Latin  MSS. 
of  the  Gospels  and  Acts ;  nothing  like  forms  of  the  Syriac  Versions 
such  as  the  Curetonian  and  Sinaitic ;  nothing  like  the  Diatessaron. 

And  yet  when  we  look  broadly  at  the  variants  to  the  Pauline 
Epistles  we  observe  the  same  main  lines  of  distribution  as  in  the 
rest  of  the  N.T.  A  glance  at  the  apparatus  criticus  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  will  show  the  tendency  of  the  authorities  to  fall 
into  the  groups  DEFG;  HB;  MACLP.  These  really  corre- 
spond to  hke  groups  in  the  other  Books :  DEFG  correspond 
to  the  group  which,  in  the  nomenclature  of  Westcott  and  Hort,  is 
called  '  Western ' ;  N  B  appear  (with  other  leading  MSS.  added)  to 
mark  the  Une  which  they  would  call  '  Neutral ' ;  N  A  C  L  P  would 
include,  but  would  not  be  identical  with,  the  group  which  they  call 
'  Alexandrian.'  The  later  uncials  generally  (with  accessions  every 
now  and  then  from  the  older  ranks)  would  constitute  the  family 
which  they  designate  as  '  Syrian,'  and  which  others  have  called 
'  Antiochene,' '  Byzantine,'  '  Constantinopohtan,'  ot  '  Ecclesiastical.' 

Exception  is  taken  to  some  of  these  titles,  especially  to  the  term 
'  Western,'  which  is  only  retained  because  of  its  long-established 
use,  and  no  doubt  gives  but  a  very  imperfect  geographical  descrip- 
tion of  the  facts.  It  might  be  proposed  to  substitute  names 
suggested  in  most  cases  by  the  leading  MS.  of  the  group,  but 
generalized  so  as  to  cover  other  authorities  as  well.  For  instance, 
we  might  speak  of  the  S-text  (= '  Western'),  the  P-text  (= '  Neutral'), 
the  m-text  (  =  * Alexandrian'),  and  the  e-text  or  <r-text  (=' Ecclesi- 
astical'ot  'Syrian').  Such  terms  would  beg  no  questions;  they 
woiakl  simply  describe  facts.    It  would  be  an  advantage  that  the 


Ixxii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [f  1 

same  term  '  8-text '  would  be  equally  suggested  by  the  leading  MS. 
in  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  and  in  the  Pauline  Epistles ;  the  term 
'  P-text,'  while  suggested  by  B,  would  carry  with  it  no  assumption 
of  superiority ;  '  a-text '  would  recall  equally  '  Alexandrian '  and 
*  Codex  Alexandrinus ' ;  and  '  «-text '  or  '  a-text '  would  not  imply 
any  inherent  inferiority,  but  would  only  describe  the  undoubted 
facts,  either  that  the  text  in  question  was  that  generally  accepted  by 
the  Church  throughout  the  Middle  Ages,  or  that  in  its  oldest  form 
it  can  be  traced  definitely  to  the  region  of  Antioch  and  northern 
Syria.  It  is  certain  that  this  text  (alike  for  Gospels,  Acts,  and 
Epistles)  appears  in  the  fourth  century  in  this  region,  and  spread 
from  it ;  while  as  to  the  debated  point  of  its  previous  history  nothing 
would  be  either  affirmed  or  denied. 

If  some  such  nomenclatnre  as  this  were  adopted  «  further  step  might  be 
taken  by  distingviisbing  the  earlier  and  later  stages  of  the  same  text  as  8^, 
8',  &c.,  <rS  •r',  &fc  It  would  also  have  to  be  noted  that  although  in  the 
vast  majority  of  cases  the  group  would  include  the  MS.  from  which  it 
took  its  name,  still  in  some  instances  it  would  not  include  it,  and  it  might 
even  be  ranged  on  the  opposite  side.  This  would  occur  most  often  with 
the  a-text  and  A,  but  it  would  occur  also  occasionally  with  the  ^-text  and 
B  (as  conspicuously  in  Rom.  xL  6). 

Such  being  the  broad  outlines  of  the  distribution  of  authorities  oa  th« 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  we  ask.  What  are  its  distinctive  and  individoal 
features  ?  These  are  for  the  most  part  shared  with  the  rest  of  the  Pauline 
Epistlea.  One  of  the  advantages  which  most  of  the  other  Epistles  possess. 
Romans  is  without :  none  of  the  extant  fragments  of  Cod.  H  belong  to  it. 
This  deprives  us  of  one  important  criterion ;  but  conclusions  obtained  for 
the  other  Epistles  may  be  applied  to  this.  For  instance,  the  student  will 
observe  carefully  the  readings  of  N*  and  Arm.  Sufficient  note  has  unfor- 
tunately not  been  taken  of  them  in  the  commentary,  as  the  clue  was  not  in 
the  writer's  hands  when  it  was  written.  In  this  respect  the  reader  must  be 
asked  to  supplement  it.  He  should  of  course  apply  the  new  test  with 
caution,  and  judge  each  case  on  its  merits :  only  careful  use  can  show  to  what 
extent  it  is  valid.  When  we  consider  the  mixed  origin  of  nearly  all  ancient 
texts,  sweeping  propositions  and  absolute  rules  are  seen  to  be  oat  of 
place. 

The  specific  characteristics  of  the  textual  apparatus  of  Romans  may  be 
said  to  be  these  :  (i)  the  general  inferiority  in  boldness  and  originality  of  the 
8-  (or  Western)  text ;  (ii)  the  fact  that  there  is  a  distinct  Western  element  in 
B,  which  therefore  when  it  is  combined  with  authorities  of  the  8-  or  Western 
type  is  diminished  in  value ;  (iii;  the  consequent  rise  in  importance  of  the 
group  N  AC  ;  (iv)  the  existence  of  a  few  scattered  readings  either  of  B  alone 
or  of  B  in  combinatidn  with  one  or  two  other  authorities  which  have  eoa- 
siderable  intrinsic  probability  and  may  be  right. 

We  proceed  to  say  a  few  words  on  each  of  these  heada. 

(i)  The  first  must  be  taken  with  the  reservations  noted  above.  The 
Western  or  8-text  has  not  it  is  true  the  bold  and  interesting  variations  which 
are  found  in  the  Gospels  and  Acts.  It  has  none  of  the  striking  inter- 
polations which  in  those  Books  often  bring  in  ancient  and  valuable  matter 
That  may  be  due  mainly  to  the  fact  that  the  interpolations  in  question  are 
for  the  most  part  historical,  and  therefore  would  naturally  be  looked  for  in 
the  Historical  Books.  In  £p.  to  Romans  the  more  important  8-variants 
arc  not  interpoJatioos  bat  omissions  (as  e.  g.  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke).  Still 


|Y.]  THE  TEXT  Ixxiii 

Ibeie  TariantB  prcsenre  some  ef  the  freedom  of  cmrrection  and  paraphrase  to 
which  we  are  accustomed  elsewhere. 

E.  g.  iii.  9  rl  irpoiearixofity  riptaffor  ;  D*  G,  Chryt.  Orig.-lat  «/. :  rl  oSc ; 

w^txof^eOa  ;  r#/. 
k.  19  «v  KaTfviriafv  D  E  F  G,  Scc     Orig.-lat  Epiph.  Ambrstr.  ai. : 

Hartvorjatt  N  A  B  C  a/. 
».  14  M  TOW  anapr-qaavras  6a,  63,  67**,  Orig.-lat.  C«dd.  Lai.  ap, 

Aug.,  Ambrstr. :  «*J  tovj  /xi)  an).aprr\aavTa%  rel. 
*iL  6  tbC  Bavarov  D  E  F  G,  Codd.  ap.  Orig.-lat  al. :  oMoOavivrK  reL 
sii.    1 1  Tf>  Katp^  ZovXfiovTfs  D*  F  G,  Codd.   Lot.  ap.   HieroD.  ap. 

Orij^.-lat  Ambrstr.  :  ry  Kvplif  ^ov\tv::vTtt  rel. 

13  ToTf  fjivdaut  Tail'  iyiojv  D*  F  G,  C»dd.  ap.  Theod.  Mops.  ap. 

Orig.-lat  HiL  Ambrstr.  al.:  toTs  xpe'i's  tou'  tiyioiv  rtl.     lTHcsc 

two  readings  were  perhaps  due  in  the  tirst  instaace  to  accidental 

triors  of  transcription.] 
SV.  13  wKr]po<popriaat  B  F  G :  wkifpiMtut  rtl. 

aa  voWdxis  B  D  E  F  G :  T<i  noXXi  reL 

31  5«p<xpopia  B  D*  F  G,  Ambrstr. :  SiaKoria  reL 
The  most  interesting  aspect  of  this  branch  of  the  text  is  the  history  <^  its 
tntecedents  as  represented  by  the  common  archetype  of  D  G,  and  even  more 
by  the  pecnliar  element  in  G.  The  most  prominent  of  these  readings  are 
disdused  below  in  f  g,  bnt  a  still  further  investigation  of  them  in  connexion 
with  allied  phenomena  in  other  Epistles  is  desirable. 

(ii)  It  will  hare  been  seen  that  in  the  last  three  readings  just  given  B  joins 
with  the  unmistakably  Western  authorities.  And  this  phenomenon  is  in 
point  of  fact  frequently  repeated.  We  have  it  also  in  the  omission  of 
■fnpwroy  i.  16;  cm.  yap  iii.  a ;  om.  r§  vlaru  t.  2  ;  *in9.  /xiv  vi.  21  ;  5ici  i6 
lroi«ovv  avTov  Iivtv^ia  viii.  1 1  (where  however  there  is  a  great  mass  of  other 
authorities) ;  *om.  'Irjaovs  and  *om.  ««  vtKpwv  viii.  34 ;  1)  diaffrj/iTj  ix.  4 ;  ins. 
6$r  ix.  19;  *oT«  after  v6nov  and  *faiTd  ins.  after  iroiijaas  x.  5 ;  if  [rois]  x, 
so ;  *om.  ydp  xir.  5  ;  om.  owi',  inoSuatt,  fom.  rqi  ©eoj  xiv.  1 2  ;  *add  ^  a«av- 
taXi(*T€u  ^  da6(v€i  xiy.  21  ;  v/ids  xv.  7;  rf^v  [Afavx'?^'*']  xv.  17. 

It  is  perhaps  significant  that  in  all  the  instances  marked  with  ♦  the  group 
is  joined  by  8<«.  It  may  be  through  a  copy  related  to  the  '  Codex  Pam- 
phili '  that  these  readings  came  into  R  We  also  note  that  the  latest  and 
worst  of  all  the  readings  found  in  B,  the  long  addition  in  xi.  6  d  5e  «f  epywv 
oiixiri  (om.  iarl  B)  x^P^^'  ^^*^  ''^  tpyov  ovtciri  iffrl  x<ip's  ("^  B ;  (pyov  aL) 
is  shared  by  B  with  K'h.  In  the  instances  marked  with  f,  and  in  xv.  13 
m\Tipo(popijffai,  B  agrees  not  with  D  but  with  G;  but  on  the  uther  hand  in 
Tiii.  34  (om.  'Irjaovi)  and  in  xr.  7  it  ag;rees  with  D  against  G  ;  so  that  the 
resemblance  to  the  peculiar  elemeut  in  the  latter  MS.  does  not  stand  out 
quite  clearly.     In  the  other  instances  both  D  and  G  are  represented. 

(iii)  When  B  thus  goes  over  to  the  Western  or  8-group  the  mr.in  support 
of  the  alternative  reading  is  naturally  thrown  upon  N  AC.  This  is  a  group 
which  outside  the  Gospels  and  Acts  and  especially  in  Past.  Epp.  Heb.  and 
Apoc.  (with  or  without  other  support)  has  not  seldom  preserved  the  right 
reading.  It  becomes  in  fact  the  main  group  wherever  B  is  not  extant.  The 
principal  difficulty — and  it  is  one  of  the  chief  of  the  not  very  numerous 
textual  difficulties  in  Romans — is  to  determine  whether  these  MSS,  really 
retain  the  original  text  or  whether  their  reading  is  one  of  the  finer  Alexan- 
drian corrections.  This  ambiguity  besets  us  (e. g)  in  the  very  complex 
attestation  of  viii.  11.  The  combination  is  strengthened  where  NA  are 
joined  by  the  Westerns  as  in  iii.  28.  In  this  instance,  as  in  a  few  others, 
they  are  opposed  by  B  C,  a  pair  which  do  not  carry  quite  as  much  weight 
in  the  Epistles  as  they  would  in  the  Gospels. 

(!▼)  It  may  appear  paradoxical,  but  the  value  oi  B  seems  to  rise  when 
ft  is  deserted  by  all  or  nearly  all  other  nnciala.     Appearances  may  be 


Ixxhr  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [^  V. 

deceptive,  bnt  there  it  not  a  little  reason  for  tbialring  that  tb»  fallMvlm 
readings  belong  to  the  soundest  inncnnoat  kciaal  •!  th«  MSL 
It.  I  om.  tvpTjKivai. 

T.  6  tl  ft. 

▼it  35  X^pis  ry  0f^. 

▼iii.  14  A  yci.p  fiKinti,  rtt  IXmliu  ; 

X,  g  ri  Prjfia  .  . .  Srt  Kvpios  1tiir»9t. 

xiy.  13  om.  wpouKopLfia  .  .  .  ^, 

zv.  19  nvtvuaros  withont  addition. 

As  all  these  readings  have  been  disenssed  more  or  lest  fully  In  the  com- 
mentary, they  need  only  be  referred  to  here  Two  more  readings  present 
considerable  attractions. 

ix.  33  om.  Koi. 

xvi.  37  om.  ^. 

They  are  however  open  to  some  snspidon  of  being  corrections  to  ease  the 
construction.  The  question  is  whether  or  not  they  are  valid  exceptions  to 
the  rule  that  the  more  difficult  reading  is  to  be  preferred.  Such  exceptions 
there  undoubtedly  are  ;  and  it  is  at  least  a  tenable  view  that  these  are 
among  them. 

Other  singular,  or  subsingular,  readings  of  6  will  be  foand  ia  sv.  4i  13. 
to,  3a.     But  these  are  less  attractive  and  less  important 


§  8.  Literary  History. 

The  literary  history  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  begins  earKer 
than  that  of  any  other  book  of  the  N.T.  Not  only  is  it  clearly 
and  distinctly  quoted  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  but 
even  within  the  N.T.  canon  there  are  very  close  resemblances  both 
in  thought  and  language  between  it  and  at  least  three  other  books ; 
these  resemblances  we  must  first  consider. 

We  shall  begin  with  the  first  Epistle  of  SL  Peter.  In  the 
following  table  the  passages  in  which  there  is  a  similarity  between 
the  two  Epistles  are  compared : 

Rom.  ix.  35  KoXtaw  rhv  mi  Xair  I  Peter  tt.  10  W  rcr)  cA  Xadt,  rib 

liov  KaoY  ftov,  teal  riiv  ovk  ^^OTf-  ti  Xa^t  Btov,  al  •iim  ^Knjfitp^if  v*r 

nivrfv  Tjyainjfifvrjv.  9i  iKfijOirra. 

Rom.  ix.  33,  33  arpe<7^««fa»' r^  I  Peter  iL  6-8    *I8«tf,  rl$mn  |p 

XtOqi  Tov  vpoaKofxnaros,  leaOut  Xiiir   Kl$or  dtcpoyonnaiow   ttcXtKriif, 

ftypawrat,  'ISotu,  riOijfit  Iv  Siwr  irrifioy'  Kal  i  wtartimw  kw*  mir^ 

KiOoy  v poam6n(iaTOi  Kal  wir-  ov   fi^   «arai#x*'*'^P    •     •     •    ai^ot 

pav  aKavSiXov  Kal  6  wiortvojv  IfurfjOri     (It     KeipaXijr    ycjf'uu,     *mi. 

Ir*      air^      •«      «ar«< vx**'^<^  kl0o$   wp00K6fiftaT»t   Kal    wirpm 

wtrmi.  0KarSi\»v,  «t  wp»omiwT»w0t  r^ 

X^Tf*  dwtiSawm,  cb  I  aai  M- 
$r)Oay. 

Rom.  xiL  I  wapavr^ffui  ri  gii^tmrm  I  Peter  iL  5  ayw^ymu  urtwitarwii 

h^v  dva'tav  (uaar,  ayiar,  tvaptt-  #vriat    tiwp^aifKrmn   9*^    9ti    'L 

roy  rif  ©ty,  t^  KoyiKriv  Karptiay  Xf. 

Rom.    xii.    a    ni)    avrxVM**'*'  *  Peter   L  14   ni)  #r#x<f^*^<C^ 

^*edt  T^  aXSi¥i  Toirp.  ffurci  rait  vpiTtp«y  jr  rf  irfrti^  iyaQv 


*«•] 


UTBRARY  HISTORY 


Ixxv 


The  following  passages  seem 
thoughts  and  words : 

Rom.  zii.  3  dXXd  ^ptmtif  cit  tA 

moi^porttr  .  .  . 

^/Mx . . .  cfrc  dia«o>'iar,  ir  rf 
twixov^f  .  . . 

3  (tcaarqf  At  i  Ocdt  i/iiptat 
Hirpor  vlarfoK. 

Cf.  also  Rom.  xiiL  11-14;  ft-io; 
rii.  9,  13. 


to  be  modelled  on  St  PauTi 


Rom.  ziL  9  4  iyaw^  drvvi- 
«/)(roi  .  .  .  10   rp    <fn\aS«k^if 

Rom.  zii.  16  rd  aird  (Is  dXXifXaw 

^povovvTtf  nif  TO  vtprjKcL  tppo- 
rovvTfs,  dAAd  Tofi  rawtn'oii 
#vi'a«a7o/x(i'M.  fi^  yivtaSt  <f>p6vifU)i 
ra^'  cavTor?. 

17  ftrjStyl  ca/rdr  drrt  xaxov 
iwoSiSdyres"  wpovocyvfuyot  «a\d 
h>diiTioy  vavruy  AvOpinrav 

18  cl  5vi'ar($>',  rd  l£  biMv,  iitri 
•dyrwr  AvOpanroir  flp^ytiarrtt. 

CL  also  YT.  9,  14. 

Rom.  xiii.  i  waaa  tfvx^  i(ovaUus 
iircpcxoi/o'ais  ivoraaffioSw 
ov  yip  iariy  i^ovaia  tl  fxif  vwi  Btoi, 
ml  Si  oZaat  irri  9*»5  rtTay/xiyai 
tUrlr  ... 

3  ol  yiip  apxovrti  o£«  tlal  p6$ot 
r^  iya9^  (pyq>,  dX\oi  r^  Kam^  . . . 

4  6(oG  yd,p  Zi6,icoy6s  iorir,  l»- 
tiKos  tls  ifyyify  t^  ri  kuk^p  mpia- 
9wn  .  . . 

7  iw6Sort  wSffi  r6$  6^ttkir  r^ 
rdr  <p6poy  riv  <p6poy,  r^  ri  riktt 
vh  TfKot,  T^  T^y  <p609y  rir  ^6^»Pf 


I  Peter  ir.  7-11  wArrup  8<  ri  WXoi 
477i«<'  aoxppoviiaaTf  ovv  icai  ylf- 
tf/art  *h  vpoaivxas'  vph  irayrojy  t^ 
fii  iavToiis  dydwrjr  itertvij  (xoyrtt, 
Srt  &yain)  tcaKvirrti  w\ij6os  aftapnajv 
^i\6(tyot  tls  iWTi\ovi,  avtv  yoyyv- 
91X01)'  tKaarot  KaOais  IXa^t  x^P*^' 
HO,  tls  iavTovs  avri  StaKovovyrti, 
As  KaXol  olicov6fiot  TtoiKiKrjs  x<ip*'''0> 
9tov'  cf  rtf  KaXfi,  in  \6yta  @<ov'  •! 
rtt  SiaKtwti,  As  t£  Ifx^^ot  {t  X<'P7T*' 
i  9t6s. 

I  Peter  L  aa  rdt  ^vx^s  (>i*»y  ^lyn- 
mSrts  ...  (It  pi\aSt\<piay  dvvv6r 
mpiToy  iK  KapStoM  dWrjXovs  d^avi^ 
oart  itcrtySis. 

I  Peter  ilL  8,  9  rd  ii  riXos,  vivrtt 
ifA6<f>ports,  avfiiraOfis,  ^X(i5(A<^0(, 
tvair\ayxy<H,  Tairtiy6<ppoyts,  (til 
dwoSiSoyrts  Kaitiy  dvrl  Kaxoi 
i^  \oiSopiaf  dyrl  XotSo/xat,  rovvayricv 
M  tvKoyovvrts,  iri  tls  rovro  «/cXl^ 
#)jT(  fro  tvXoyiay  uXijpoyofi^aTjrt . . . 

II  iKKkiydrw  8c  dvo  icaKov,  Kti 
woirjadru  dya$6y'  ^tjTiiadiw  tlf^wtiw 
tai  iut^drw  avrijr. 

I  Peter  ii.  13-17  iwriysirt  wdof 

ifOpcaviyji  xrlati  8id  rir  Kiptoy, 
tin  fiaaiXu,  «bt  vvtpixoyri,  etrt 
iiyinodiy,  i/s  81'  avroS  vffiirofiiyois  tls 
igSiKijciy  MaKowoi&y  ivaivov  Si 
iiya$oiiou!iy  in  ovtws  iari  t6  6fKr]fta 
rov  8cov  . .  .  wiyras  Tt/t^iaarf  r^r 
dSfK/poTtjra  dyavart'  rhf  Bcdc 
f»fi*i«tr  rif  BatiXia  Ti/tdre. 


Although  equal  stress  cannot  be  laid  on  all  these  passages  tht 
resemblance  is  too  great  and  too  constant  to  be  merely  acci- 
dental. In  I  Pet  ii.  6  we  have  a  quotation  from  the  O.T.  with 
the  same  variations  from  the  LXX  that  we  find  in  Rom.  ix.  33 
(see  the  note).  Not  only  do  we  find  the  same  thoughts,  such  as 
the  metaphorical  use  of  the  idea  of  sacrifice  (Rom.  xii.  i ;  i  Pet 
jL  5),  and  the  same  rare  words,  such  as  <n)C)(T]iiaTiitiT6ai,  awird- 
Mftne,  but  in  one  passage  (Rom.  xiii.  1-7;  i  Pet  u.  13-17)  wa 


Ixxvi  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  8 

have  what  must  be  accepted  as  conclusive  evidence,  the  same  ideas 
occurring  in  the  same  order.  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  tl>at  of 
the  two  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  the  earlier.  St.  Paul  works 
out  a  thesis  clearly  and  logically;  St.  Peter  gives  a  series  of 
maxims  for  which  he  is  largely  indebted  to  St.  Paul.  For  example, 
in  Rom.  xiii.  7  we  have  a  broad  general  principle  laid  down, 
St,  Peter,  clearly  influenced  by  the  phraseology  of  that  passage, 
merely  gives  three  rules  of  conduct.  In  St.  Paul  the  language 
and  ideas  come  out  of  the  sequence  of  thought;  in  St.  Peter 
they  are  adopted  because  they  had  already  been  used  for  the  same 
purpose. 

This  relation  between  the  two  Epistles  is  supported  by  other 
independent  evidence.  The  same  relation  which  prevails  between 
the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  also 
found  to  exist  between  it  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and 
the  same  hypothesis  harmonizes  best  with  the  facts  in  that  case 
also.  The  three  Epistles  are  all  connected  with  Rome:  one  of 
them  being  written  to  the  city,  the  other  two  in  all  probability 
being  written  from  it.  We  cannot  perhaps  be  quite  certain  as 
to  the  date  of  i  Peter,  but  it  must  be  earlier  than  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  who  quote  it ;  while  it  in  its  turn  quotes  as  we  see  at  least 
two  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  these  the  most  important.  We  may 
notice  that  these  conclusions  harmonize  as  far  as  they  go  with  the 
view  taken  in  §  3,  that  St.  Peter  was  not  the  founder  of  the  Roman 
Church  and  had  not  visited  it  when  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was 
written.  In  early  church  history  arguments  are  rarely  conclusive ; 
and  the  even  partial  coincidence  of  diflferent  lines  of  investigation 
adds  greatly  to  the  strength  of  each. 

The  wriier  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  again  was  probably 
indebted  to  the  Romans,  the  resemblance  between  Rom.  iv.  17 
and  Heb.  xi.  11  is  very  close  and  has  been  brought  out  in  the 
notes,  while  in  Rom.  xii.  19,  Heb.  x.  30,  we  have  the  same 
passage  of  Deuteronomy  quoted  with  the  same  marked  diver- 
gences from  the  text  of  the  LXX.  This  is  not  in  itself  conclusive 
evidence;  there  may  have  been  an  earlier  form  of  the  version 
current,  in  fact  there  are  strong  grounds  for  thinking  so ;  but  the 
hypothesis  that  the  author  <rf  the  Hebrews  used  the  Romans  is 
certainly  the  simplest.  We  again  notice  that  the  Hebrews  is 
a  book  closely  connected  with  the  Roman  Church,  as  is  proved  by 
its  early  use  in  that  Church,  and  if  it  were,  as  is  possible,  written 
from  Rome  or  Italy  its  indebtedness  to  this  Epistle  would  be 
accounted  for.  The  two  passages  referred  to  are  quoted  below; 
and,  although  no  other  passages  resemble  one  another  suflBciently 
to  be  quoted,  yet  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  many  other  of  the 
words  and  phrases  in  the  Hebrews  which  are  Pauline  in  charactei 
ou)  have  been  derived  from  an  acquaintance  with  this  Epistle. 


iB.] 


UTERARY  HISTORY 


Ixxvil 


The  passages  referred  to  are  the  following : 


Rom.  iT.  17-11  KarbtavTi  ov  M- 
9rtvat  6coS  rot/  (ojovoiovvrot  roin 
vtKpovs  .  .  .  Koi  fir)  daOivr/aat  t$ 
marti  KarfvoTfat  t6  iavrov  oSiita 
i)8t)  y fvf It pojfiivov  {iKarovTaiTTjs 
wov  vrripxatv),  Kol  T^v  V(Kpo/0tr  ri}t 
ft^rpas  ^appaf  th  8i  r^v  ivay- 
yt\iap  rod  Bead  ov  SitxpiOri  rp 
dnan'f,  dAA'  ivtZvvaniuOij  r^ 
mloTti,  Sobs  t6^a»  r^  6(9),  «aJ 
9\ripo(poprj9(ls  Sn  t  iw^yytKrai 
ivvards  ion  Kol  voi^acu. 

Rom.  zlL  19  tfiol  M'lKijou,  l-yi^ 
dtrravodd>ao>,  Xiya  Kv/)(ot. 


Heb.  zi.  1 1 , 1  a  wia-nt  koI  airfi  TAppa 
ttiwaftiv  tit  KaTafioX^v  arrfpfiaroi 
ikafitr  Koi  Tiapd  Kaipov  ijX.iHiai,  iwti 
miarbv  ^f/jaaro  rov  iirayyttki' 
fifvov  iid  icai  d<p'  (voi  fytvy^Otjaay, 
Kal  ravra  rtrtKpwfiivov  .  ,  , 

19  Koyitrdfuyot  Sri  ical  Ic  nKpuw 
^^ftip(^r  Svvardt  i  9tit. 


Heb.   X.    30  ifui    tttimims,   fyc^ 

iirratoiiifct*. 


When  we  pass  to  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  we  approach  a  much 
more  difficult  problem.  The  relation  between  it  and  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans  has  been  often  and  hotly  debated;  for  it  is 
a  theological  as  well  as  a  literary  question.  The  passages  which 
resemble  one  another  in  the  two  Epistles  are  given  at  length  by 
Prof.  Mayor  in  his  edition  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  p.  xciii,  who 
argues  strongly  in  favour  of  the  later  date  of  the  Romans.  The 
following  are  among  the  most  important  of  these ;  we  have  not 
thought  it  necessary  to  repeat  all  his  instances : 


Rom.  IL  I  M  iyavoXSyrjTot  tt,  & 
SfOpontt  va%  6  Kplvrnw  iv  ^  yip 
mplvtit  rhv  irtpoy,  atavroy  tcara- 
Kpiytw  rd  yd^  aird  wpdoatis  i 
gpiyam. 

Rom.  iL  13  oi  ydp  ol  d«^onr«) 

pSfiov  SiKauH  wapd  [rf>]  6(9)  dAA'  •! 
voti;rat  ySftov  hiKauoQrjaovToi. 

Rom.  ir.  i  rioZyipoSfuy  tvprjxivcu 
*A0padfA  riy  mpovdropa  i^/ji&r 
fford  adp/ca;  <I  yap  'APpadpi  i( 
ipyttp  iSiKaii>$t),  cxct  gavxijlM. 

Rom.  iy.  ao  fit  Si  r^  iimyytXiay 
rov  Btov  oi  9ifKpi07}  r$  dnffrif, 
dAA*  iytSwafiii0ij  ry  wlaTtt, 

Rom.  ▼.  3-5  Kavx&iitOa  h  row 
Bfdiptaiv,  tlh6Tti  irt  1)  9\tfit  iwo- 
Hoyify  Karfpyd^trat,^  Si  iwoftor^ 
9oKipii)v,  ^  S\  SoKipiif  lAir{5a-  1) 
m  tXiris  ov  «ara«rxiV*<,  Srt  ^  dYdvy 
rov  0COV  iutixyrai. 


James  ir.  II  fri^  «oToXaA«rr«  iX\^ 
Xcav,  dS(\<poi.  6  caraAaXwy  dSeX^oO,  4 
Mpiveoy  roy  dJS(X.<p6y  avrov,  xaroAoAci 
96/*0¥,  Kol  Kpiyu  vofiov  tt  Si  vofioy  Kpl- 
r<tr,  oix  tl  voiijr^i  y6iu>v,  dXAd  itpiT^. 

James  i.  aa  y'lytaOt  Si  woirjral 
X6yov,  Moi  nil  n6y»y  dxpomral  vapa- 
koyi^d/ityoi  iavrovt. 

James  iL  ai  'APpaipi  i  war^p 
^ftSiv  •iiK  i(  ipywy  iSiMaii)6ij, 
dytviyicat  'laadK  rdy  vldy  avrov  ivl  ri 
OvffiaaTTipioy ; 

James  L  6  alrtirw  Si  iy  wlortt 
p»l5iv  SiaKpiy6fi(V0i'  6  ydp  SiaKpiyd- 
H*yot  (oiKf  tt\iiSajyt  9a\Aff(Hjt  dyapu- 
iopUr^  KcH  fiim^ofUv^. 

James  i.  a-4  vaaay  X'V*^*'  i}7^<^«wtf« 
irav  wttpafffxois  vtpiviaijT*  ■notKiXois, 
yivwaKovTft  on  rd  SoKipaov  iipmy  rrjt 
niar feat  Kartpyd^tTCu  vvoftoyifiv.  i)5i 
ivoftoyij  ipyoy  riktum  ixirat,  iya  ^rc 
riktiM. 


*  The  LXX  of  Deat  oxii.  35  iwds  <r  ^pUff  iaiuii^mi  dvrMvMww,  ir» 
•#aAf  d  «o8>  ainh'. 


Ixxviii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  a 

Rom.  t{L  t3  PKiww  Si  iTtpttf  riiiof  Jamea  fr.  i  m69tp  w&Ktpm  mi  w60v 

4*    Tott    niKtal    nov,    dvTiarpa-  fuixoi   i"  Ifui' ;    o^k  iyT(v0tv,  im  rSr 

Ttv6fitroy  r^  v6fi^  rov  vooi  /tov,  ^Soyuy  i/uir  rSrf  ar partvonivmr  i* 

mai  alxiMi\aiTi(oyTi  fit  ty  r^  v6fji^  ri^t  roTt  /liKtaiv  vnwr  ; 
Afiaprias  tS>  cirri  iy  tois  niktal  fuv. 

Rom.  xiii.   la   AwoOatntia   olir  James   L  ai    Awoii/ttfi    weurtm 

rd  Ipya  rov  aKdrovt,  iySvaiifU0a  ti  ^napiav  Kal  mtpiaafiay  komIiu  ir  ifp<f^ 

vtd  5vAa  rov  ftnit,  n/ri   ii^aaO*  rby  in<f>VToy  Xoyov  rdr 

tyyi/uyar  rSiotu  rcb  ^x^  biAy. 

We  may  be  expressing  an  excessive  scepticism,  but  these  resem- 
blances seem  to  us  hardly  close  enough  to  be  convincing,  and  the 
priority  of  St.  James  cannot  be  proved.  The  problem  of  literary 
indebtedness  is  always  a  delicate  one;  it  is  very  diflBcult  to  find 
a  definite  objective  standpoint;  and  writers  of  competence  draw 
exactly  opposite  conclusions  from  the  same  facts.  In  order  to 
justify  our  sceptical  attitude  we  may  point  out  that  resemblances 
in  phraseology  between  two  Christian  writers  do  not  necessarily 
imply  literary  connexion.  The  contrast  between  aKpoarai  and  iroiijrat 
was  not  made  by  either  St.  Paul  or  St.  James  for  the  first  time ; 
metaphors  like  6r]cravpLt,€t<;,  expressions  like  iv  rjfjiepa  opyrjs  compared 
with  eV  ^nfptf  a<f)ay^s  (both  occur  in  the  O.T.),  the  phrase  vofios 
iXevdfpias  might  all  have  independent  sources.  Nor  are  there 
any  passages  where  we  find  the  same  order  of  thought  (as  in 
I  Peter)  or  the  same  passage  of  the  O.T.  quoted  with  the  same 
variations — either  of  which  would  form  stronger  evidence.  The 
resemblance  is  closest  in  Rom.  v.  3-5  =  James  i.  a-4  and  in 
Rom.  vii.  23  =  James  iv.  i,  but  these  are  not  sufficient  by  them- 
selves to  establish  a  case. 

Again,  if  we  turn  to  the  polemical  passages,  we  may  admit 
that  '  Paul  betrays  a  consciousness  that  Abraham  had  been  dted 
as  an  example  of  works  and  endeavours  to  show  that  the  word 
XoyiCofiai  is  inconsistent  with  this.'  But  the  controversy  must  have 
been  carried  on  elsewhere  than  in  these  writings,  and  it  is  equally 
probable  that  both  alike  may  be  dealing  with  the  problem  as  it 
came  before  them  for  discussion  or  as  it  was  inherited  from  the 
schools  of  the  Rabbis  (see  further  the  note  on  p.  102).  There  is, 
we  may  add,  no  marked  resemblance  in  style  in  the  controversial 
passage  further  than  would  be  the  necessary  result  of  dealing 
with  the  same  subject-matter.  There  is  nothing  decisive  to  prove 
obligation  on  the  part  of  either  Epistle  to  the  other  or  to  prove 
the  priority  of  either.  The  two  Epistles  were  written  in  the  same 
small  and  growing  community  which  had  inherited  or  created 
a  phraseology  of  its  own,  and  in  which  certain  questions  early 
acquired  prominence.  It  is  quite  possible  that  the  Epistle  ol 
St.  James  deals  with  the  same  controversy  as  does  that  to  the 
Romans;  it  may  even  possibly  be  directed  against  St.  Paul's 
teaching  or  the  teaching  of  St  Paul's  followers;  but  there  is  no 


f  •.]  LITERARY  HISTORY  Ixxlx 

proof  that  eidier  Epistle  was  written  with  a  knowledge  of  the 
other.  There  are  no  resemblances  in  style  8u£Scient  to  prove  literary 
connexion. 

One  other  book  of  the  N.T.  may  just  be  mentioned.  If  the 
doxology  at  the  end  of  Jude  be  compared  with  that  at  the  end  of 
Romans  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  they  are  quite  independent 
It  may  be  that  they  follow  a  common  form  derived  from  Jewish 
doxologies,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  the  concluding  verses  o? 
the  Romans  formed  a  model  which  was  widely  adopted  in  the 
Christian  Church.  We  certainly  seem  to  find  doxologies  of  the 
same  type  as  these  two  in  i  Clem.-Rom.  Ixiv,  Ixv.  a  ;  Mart.  Polyc. 
XX  ;  it  is  followed  also  in  Eph.  iii.  ao.  The  resemblance  in  form 
of  the  doxologies  may  be  seen  by  comparing  them  with  one 
another. 

Rom.  xA.  15-37  rf   %\  Ivra-  Jade   a4,   35    rf    8)    Svfa/i^rf* 

Itiw^  ilMt  0Tr]pi^(u  .  .  .  ti6p^  ^v\d(au  i/ftas  drraiaTotn,  Kol  or^aat 
0o<p^  Oc^,  lid  lijirev  X^t#r«v,  ,  .  .a^iwuoxn  .  .  .  Ii6v^  &f^  aairripi 
[^i  4  Hi*  •!*  T*it  •Iwrai.  Ilfubv,  S(d  'Ii7<r«S  Xpiarov  rov  Kvpiov 

iftrnv,  Siia,  fuyaXuavvT],  Kp&roi  Koi 
i^ovaiOf  wp6  vaprds  rov  alSivoi  xal  vw 
maifh  warrat  r9i>s  aluyat.    dif^y. 

When  we  enter  the  sub-apostolic  age  the  testimony  to  the  use 
/  the  Epistle  is  full  and  ample.  The  references  to  it  in  Clement  of 
^lome  are  numerous.  We  can  go  further  than  this,  the  discus- 
bions  on  wioTit  and  diKaioirvvri  (see  p.  147)  show  clearly  that  Clement 
used  this  Epistle  at  any  rate  as  a  theological  authority.  Bishop 
Lightfoot  has  well  pointed  out  how  he  appears  as  reconciling  and 
combining  four  diflferent  types  of  Apostolic  teaching.  The  Apostles 
belong  to  an  older  generation,  their  writings  have  become  subjects 
oi  discussion.  Clement  is  already  beginning  to  build  up,  however 
madequately,  a  Christian  theology  combining  the  teaching  of  the 
'iiiferent  writers  of  an  earlier  period.  If  we  turn  to  Ignatius' 
letters  what  will  strike  us  is  that  the  words  and  ideas  of  the  Apostle 
have  become  incorporated  with  the  mind  of  the  writer.  It  is  not 
so  much  that  he  quotes  as  that  he  can  never  break  away  from 
the  circle  of  Apostolic  ideas.  The  books  of  the  N.T.  have  given 
'aim  his  vocabulary  and  form  the  source  of  his  thoughts.  Polycarp 
quoies  more  freely  and  more  definitely.  His  Epistle  is  almost 
a  Cento  of  N.T.  passages,  and  among  them  are  undoubted  quota- 
tions from  the  Romans.  As  the  quotations  of  Polycarp  come  from 
Roui.,  I  Cor.,  a  Cor.,  Gal.,  Eph.,  Phil.,  i  Tim.,  2  Tim.,  it  is 
difficult  not  to  believe  that  he  possessed  and  made  use  of  a  collec- 
tion j!  the  Pauline  Epistles.  Corroborative  evidence  of  this  might 
be  found  in  the  desire  he  shows  to  make  a  collection  of  the  letters 
of  Igi.atius.  He  would  be  more  likely  to  do  this  if  he  already  pos- 
lesseu  collections  of  letters ;  and  it  is  really  impossible  to  maintaio 


Ixxx 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 


[§» 


that  the  Ignatian  letters  were  fonned  into  one  collection  before 

those  of  St.  Paul  had  been.  Assuming  then,  as  we  are  entided  to 
do,  that  the  Apostolic  Fathers  represent  the  first  quarter  of  the 
second  century  we  find  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  at  that  time 
widely  read,  treated  as  a  standard  authority  on  Apostolic  teaching, 
and  taking  its  place  in  a  collection  of  Pauline  letters. 

The  following  are  quotations  and  reminiscences  of  the  Epistle 
in  Clement  of  Rome : 


Rom.  i.  21   iaicorlaBii  4  ^*i- 
vtrot  airwv  KapSia, 


Rom.  H.  »4  rd  fip   5ro/ta  tow 

SeoC  Si'  v//ay  0\acr(pr] fJ-tirai  ir 
Tofj  (dvfaiv,  KoOuJs  "YtypaiTTat. 

Rom.  iv.  7  "  Maffd/xot  Sir  A<pi- 
Briaav  al  dvo^tat  ital  aiv  ivt- 
Ka\v(p9r}ffay  al  inapriai' 

8  fxaKaptot  avi)p  w  ov  fxfj 
koyiaT]Tat  Kvpiot  ifxaprlav." 

9  6  fxa/tapiafxds  oZv  ovros 
ivl  rfjv  TTtpiTOfj.rjv;  ^  Koi  iwi  r^qv 
oKpo^varlav ; 

Rom.  vi.  I  t/  oZy  ipovpnv, 
iwifii(V(vp(v  rfj  apiapriq,  tva  ^  X*^P** 
ir\«of dap  ;  fiij  fivoiTO. 


Rom.  i.  ig  tnmXtjpvptivovt  wiaji 
iSiKiif,  iTovripia,  ir\fot'f(l(f,  KaKitf, 
pLearoiis  <p9uvov,  <puvov,  iptSoi,  5d- 
Kov,  KaK  01]  6  (las, if/ 1  Ovp  I  <TT  is,  K  a- 
TaXdAowj,  OfoOTvffis,  iPpiffrds, 
vwtpr]<pdvovs,  i\a(6yas,  icpfvpt- 
rdis  KaKuiv,  "Yovtvffiy  dneiOus,  davvi- 
Tovs,  davuOiTovs,  dardpyovs,  dvf\trf- 
Hovas'  oiTivcs,  rb  ZiKaiojp.a  tov  8(ov 
iwiyvovTts,  on  ol  rd  roiavra 
wpdaaoyrts  d^iot  Saydrov  daiy, 
ov  fi6yoy  aird  voiovaiv,  dAAd  ttai 
wvtvSoKoiaty  rots  npiaaovatv. 

Rom.  ix.  4,  5  Ac  .  .  .  i)  \arpela 
gal  al  iirayytXiai,  Siv  ol  naripts,  icai 
i(  Siv  6  Xpiards  ri  «ar<i  cdpwa. 


Rom.  xiii.  i,  a  Maaa  ^wxh  i(ov- 
eiaiv  virfp(xoi'ffats  broraaaiaOcu'  ov 
fap  itjTtv  f^ovaia  tl  p.if  vno  Qtov,  al 
Sk  ovffat  vvi  &(ov  Tfray fiiyai  tlait' 
iiOTt  6  dwnrafaonwos   r%   i^ovt'itf 


Qem.  36  8«d  roxrroy  If  ioiyfs 
col  iaicorajfiiyri  iidvoia  iipS/y  dro- 
9dXKu  fls  rb  davpaarov  airov  (puis. 

Clem.  51  Sid  ri  ffKKr)pw6rjyai 
uiiT&y  rds  davyirevs  itapSias. 

Clem.  47  Si(TTt  Koi  0KaO(pTjpias 
IvKpeptaOai  Tq>  uv6pLaTi  Kvpiov  Bid 
ri^v  vfitTfpav  d<ppoavnjr. 

Clem.  50  Ma/cdpioi  Hjv  d<pi- 
9r)aay  at  dvopilai  «ai  3jv  imita- 
Xv(pOr}<rav  al  dpapriav  paKdptos 
dyfjp  oT  ow  fii)  \oyiffi)Tai  Kvpios 
dfiaprlay.  oiSi  iariv  iy  t^  ffrSpari 
avTov  56Kos.  ovtos  6  paKapitrfioi 
lyiyfTO  iirl  rovs  iK\*Ktypivovs  iinb  rov 

BfOV   K.T.K. 

Clem.  33  rt  ovv  woirjavfttv,  dSfX- 
^oi;  dpyria<up.ty  dnb  rffs  dyaOonoitat 
Koi  iyKaTaXeiirw/jKy  rtju  dydvrjv ;  fitj- 
$apws  TovTO  idaai  o  Stanorijs  i<p'  i^/iTf 
7«  yfvt)6^vai. 

Clem.  35  diroppi\pavTfs  dtp'  iavrSn 
rdaay  dSiKiar  icai  dvontay,  vXco- 
yt(lay,  Iptis,  icaitOTiOfias  re  «ai 
S6K0VS,  \fii6vpiapiovs  Tt  Ka\  Kara^ 
X.a\ids,0toaTvyiav,vitt  pr]<payiay 
Tt  Kai  d\a(oyfiay,  KtvoSoi'iuy  rt  nal 
d(pi\oltviav.  ravra  yap  ol  upda- 
aoyrts  ffTwyijToi  t^  &(^  vndpxovaiy 
oh  ftovoy  Si  ol  vpdaooyrts  avrd, 
dXXA  Koi  ol  0¥y*vioMovrrts  airrois. 


Clem.  3S  If  aircv  yip  Itptit  mH 

Atvirat  wdvTts  ol  ktiTovpyovvrts  r^ 
$v<naffTTipi(fi  TOV  <d(ov-  i(  avTov  i 
Kvpios  'Irjaovs  t6  Mard  aipKa-  i( 
ai/rov  0a(Ti\fis  koi  apxovres  Kal  iiyov- 
f^(voi  xard  rby  'lov5av. 

Clem.  61  ffv,  SiffTTOTa,  tSwKas  riff 
l^ovffiav  rfjs  ^aaiXtias  a{iTois  Sid  tov 
pfyaKoirpcnovi  «ai  dvfKSiTjyrjTov  Kpd- 
Tuvs  (TOV,  tls  rd  yivwffKOVTas  'fjl*ds  T^ 
Ivb   aoi   airrois    StSofUvtiv   S6(atf  mi 


is.] 


LITERARY   HISTORY 


Ixxxl 


rfi  TeS  •€•»  iiaray^  iyfiiffnjKttr  <A       TinffP  viroTcuTfffffBat  airott,  ftriHy  ivixf 

References  in  the  letters  of  Ignatius  are  the  following: 

Rom.  i.  3  TOP  ytvofiirov  t«  crnip- 
fUXTos  AaPlS  Kara  aapxa,  roS 
ipur^ivTos  viov  9«e5  ip  SvyifAtt. 

Rom.  ii.  24. 

Ron.  iii.  37  vo»  •{r  ^cavx9'»*i 


Smyi.  I  a\Ti6a)s  ovra  in 
AalilS  /card  adpKa,  vlir 
jKora  0(Xr)fia  Kal  Svva^itr. 


yivon 
9tov 


Rom.  Ti.  4  oSt»   K€d   l^futt  i» 
9mtv6TfiTi  ia>ris  irfpnraTriaoifUP. 

Rom.  Ti.  { ;  viiL  17,  S9. 


Cf.  Trail.  8  ^both  quote  O.  T.). 
Eph.  18  irov  Kavx^<t*t  fS)v  Xtyv- 

(Close  to  a  quotation  of  i  Cor.  i.  20.) 

Eph.  19  &(ov  duOpaimvajt  (pavtpov- 
fiivov  tit  xatf6ri)r a  diSiov  ^aiTJt. 

Mag.  5  &*  ©C  til'  /ui)  av9aipirm% 
txo>P-fy  TO  dnoOavuv  (is  to  aiiroi 
wiOoi,  to  ^v  ai/Toi)  ovk  tcTiy  kv  ffpuv. 

Trail.  9  KaTci  to  ufioitufia  Si  koi  f)fms 
To^t  ViaT(iovrai  avr^  ovrcus  ■:y(per  d 
waTi)p  avTov  iv  X.  'I.,  o5  X'^P'^  ^^ 
iMjOivdv  ^y  oiiu  exofifv. 

Mag.  6  tit  Tiiww  ical  St^ax^f 
i<p9apaioa. 

Mag.  9  0J  Iv  waKaiots  wpnyftaaiv 
dvn(7TpcupivTtt  fit  KaivoTrfra  f\iri5os 
Ij^eov. 

Trail.  9  ts  *0i  iXfjOais  riyipOif  diti 
wtKpSiiv,  kytifavTot  airrdf  rw 
waipos  avrov. 

Eph.  9  wpotiToinaa/iiym  tit  «lmo- 
tofif/y  S(ov  woTpSs. 

Trail.  2  oi)  yap  ffpaifiirmw  mai 
wrS/y  tiaiy  Skucovm. 

Eph.  I  iv  «£xo^(  /rard  *!.  X.  v/ioi 
iyanav,  Kal  voyrat  vfias  avr^  iv  6ijloi6 
njTt  ttvat. 

The  following  resemblances  occur  in  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  r 


Ron.  TI.  17  (ft  Ir  mmptiS^t 
t4vov  SiSaxrjs. 

Rom.  vii.  6  uaT*  Sov\ci/(ir  4/ia« 
if  icaivoTTjTii  nvfVfiaTOS  ical  oi  vaXoii- 
njTi  ypdfifiaTOs. 

Rom.  viii.  11  i  iytipat  X.  "L 
l«  ytHpuy. 

Rom.  ix.  23  OKeij]  ikitvt  A  w^ 

^roi/xafffv  (Is  S6(ay. 

Rom.  xiv.  17  oil  ydp  taTiy  ij 
$affi\(ia  Toi  Q(ov  ffpSian  Kal 
w6ais. 

Rom.  XT.  5  Ti  avT^  fpo¥W  iw 
iXA^Aoir  Karii  X.  1. 


Rom.  vi.    13  «aj  r<i 
(vAa  5iKaio(Tvrr)t. 

Rem.  xiii.  13  iySpffi/fitBa  ti 
td  Snka  Tov  <{>arr6s. 

Rom.  xii.  10  r^  tpiXadtKfl^ 
fit  dW^Kovs  (piKoaTopyoi,  t^ 
Ti/ip  AWijKovs  wpoijyovfKyoi. 

Rom.  xiii.  8  6  ycLp  dyairu/t'  rdv 
irtpoy  yiiMV  v««Ai^p««<r  «.t.A.. 


Pol.  4  iwKiaiifittm  ftt  iwK»tt 
T^i  9iitai»9vyqt. 


Pol.  10  fratemitatis  mmatortt 
diiigentes  invicem,  in  veritatc  sociati, 
mansne'udinem  Domini  alterutri 
praestolcntes,  nullum  despicientes. 

Pol.  3  (dv  ydp  Ttj  Tovraiv  ivrbs  ^ 
Vttr  ?\.T]pOJIC(V  (VT0\TjV  l,tK(Hoavinjs'      i 

ydp  (xo^y  dydrijy  fttutpdy  icrw  70091 
iM'^pTiar. 


Ixxxii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROBIANS  [§  8k 

Rom.  xiT.  lO  irArrti  ydp  wapth  PoL    6   mti    vivrat     M    9Upm^ 

0rfja6 fi*Oa  T^  ^■/}HaTt  rov^  &ioi  0T^rat    r^   P'^/tart    rtS    X/m«t*6, 

...  Koi    fxavror  Mp  4avr«9  kifot 

12  dpa  [oZv]  fKaarot  ^ftwv  ntpi  8«Cr««. 
lavrov  K6yor  iitvti*  [r^  O*^]*. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  give  evidence  in  detail  from  later 
authors.  We  find  distinct  reminiscences  of  the  Romans  in  Aristides 
and  in  Justin  Martyr  *.  Very  interesting  also  is  the  evidence  of  the 
heretical  writers  quoted  by  Hippolytus  in  the  Refutatio  omnium 
haeresium  ;  it  would  of  course  be  of  greater  value  if  we  could  fix 
with  certainty  the  date  of  the  documents  he  makes  use  of.  We 
find  quotations  from  the  Epistle  in  writings  ascribed  to  the  Naas- 
senes ',  the  Valentinians  of  the  Italian  school  *,  and  to  Basileides '. 
In  the  last  writer  the  use  made  of  Rom.  v.  13,  14  and  viil  19,  2a 
is  exceedingly  curious  and  interesting. 

If  we  turn  to  another  direction  we  find  interesting  evidence  of 
a  kind  which  has  not  as  yet  been  fully  considered  or  estimated. 
The  series  of  quotations  appended  from  the  Testament  of  the 
Twelve  Patriarchs  can  hardly  be  explained  on  any  other  hypo- 
thesis than  that  the  writer  was  closely  acquainted  with  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  the  various 
critical  questions  which  have  been  or  ought  to  be  raised  concern- 
ing that  work,  but  it  may  be  noticed  here — 

(i)  That  the  writer  makes  use  of  a  considerable  number  of 
books  of  the  N.  T.  The  resemblances  are  not  confined  to  the 
writings  of  St.  Paul. 

(2)  That  the  quotations  occur  over  a  very  considerable  portion 
of  the  book,  both  in  passages  omitted  in  some  MSS.  and  in 
passages  which  might  be  supposed  to  belong  to  older  works. 

(3)  The  book  is  probably  older  than  the  time  of  Tertullian, 
while  the  crude  character  of  the  Christology  would  suggest  a  con- 
siderably earlier  date. 

Rom.  i.  4  roS  opiffdevrot  vfov  9(o8  Test  Levi.  18  trnk  «rfS/ia  kyim' 

iv    hway^k    itardi    tvtvfia    dyitt-       0irr)t  larcu  lir  ovtoTt.  .  .  . 
9vvr)s. .  . 

Rom    ii.  13  o£  ydp  ol  AKpoaral  Test.  Aser.  4  ot  fip  dyafiti  SySpat 

riftov  Siicaioi  vapi  t<^  Bt^.  ....  iimai9l  tlci  wapii  r^  0<^ 

*  TOW  XpiffTov  Western  and  Syrian. 
■  diroScufftj  B  D  F  G. 

'  Ty  &tq)  cm.  B  F  G. 

•  Rom.  ii.  4  =  Dial.  47 ;  Rom.  iii.  11-17  -  Dial.  2j  ;  Rom.  W.  3  -  DUL  *3; 
Rom.  ix-  7  =  Dial.  44  ;  Rom.  ix.  27-39  =  Dial.  33,  55,  64;  Rom.  s.  18  — 
Apol.  i.  40 ;  Rom.  xi.  2,  3  =  Dial.  39. 

'  Hipp.  A"^  V.  7,  pp.  138.  64-140.  76  =  Rom.  I.  20-16 

•  Ibid.  vi.  36,  p.  386.  9-10  =  Rom.  viji.  11. 

*  Ibid.  vii.  35,  p.  370.  80  -  Rom.  ▼.  13,  14;  ibid.  p.  368.  75  —  Rom.  vHi 

19,  33. 


5  8.] 


UTERARY  HISTORY 


Ixxxiii 


Rom.  ▼.  6  In  yip  TLptarot  Syrcay 
ijfi&v  daOtvaiv  (Ti  Kari  xaipiv  bwip 
dat0cuy  diri$ayt. 

Rom.    vi.    I     twinivwfitv    rp 

Rom.  Ti.  7  ^  ftLp  iwoScofiir 
StSiMaiwrai  iiri  rijs  anapriat. 

Rom.  yii.  8  d<popfifiv  Si  \a0ovoa 
^  inaprla  Sici  rrjt  iyroXijs  «a- 
TUpryiffaTO  kv  Ifiol  vaaav  iiriOv/xlay. 

Rom.  viii.  a 8  otSaixtv  il  ori  rots 
dyavSiffi  t6v  ©c^k  vAvra  rwr- 
tpytf  fit  iyaOSy. 

Rom.  ix.  ai  4  ovm  lx*<  i(ovaiay 
i  Mtpafidit  roS  wrikov,  iK  rov  av- 
Tov  ^vpdfxaros  vot^aat  t  ftiy  (tr  Tifiip' 
9K*vot,  b  ii  tls  arifuar; 

Rom.  xiL  I  mpaar^ffot  ri  9i>iMTm 
Vfi&y  $v<ritw  (Siaay,  ayiav,  (vApfffTor 
r^  B(^,  Trjy  KvyiKify  Aarpcioy 
frfiarr. 

Rom.  zii.  a  i  /o^  wticw  bwb  rov  kokov, 
dAXd  ylKa  Irr^  dya$$  rd  KaK6y. 

Rom.  xiii.  la  dnoBiiixtOa  aZv  rd 
tfyM  Tov  am6Tovs,  ivSvaii/uffa  M 
rii  iwKm  rov  (pmrSt. 

Rom.  XT.  33  6  ti  Bt6t  r^t 
tlp^vtit  furd  wdvTtjy  i/iwr. 

Rom.  xn.  ao  6  Si  e<dt  rijt  tlpijtnjt 
avwrpi^ti  rby  Xarayay  im^  roif 


Test.  Benj.  3  dmftifTfrei  twip 
Acffiuv  AwoiapttTat. 

Test.  Levi.  4  ol  &v6pwiroi  dmarcSirm 
inifttyovffir  Ir  rait  dSiKiau, 

Test.  Sym.  6  o-nojs  SiKaiojO&  Avi 
rijs  d/xaprias  rav  \pvxSin'  bpS/y. 

Test.  Neph.  8  xai  Sio  iyroXmt 
flar  Kod  (I  f^i)  yivarvrai  iy  ri^ti  a^air, 
Apaprtay  ■napkxovaiy. 

Test.  Benj.  4  &  dyaOovotup ...r^ 
AyawSiyri  rdy  Qtiy  99y*py*t. 

Test.  Neph.  a  KaOSm  ydp  6  ittpafitht 
otS(  t6  (TKtvoi,  v6aoy  x'^P^h  '""^  '"'P^ 
aiiTiy  <()ip(i  wr)\6v,  ovto)  ical  6  Kvpiot 
wpos  ofioiojffty  TOV  wvtvftarot  woitt  ri 
oufia. 

Test.  Levi  3  9poo<pipopoi  Si  Kvptm 
6ap^y  dojSias  Koytmi^y  aai  Arm- 
poKToy  mpwKpopSm. 

Test  Benj.  4  oftnn  6  iYflf«w«i6r 
ri/Tf  rb  KaK6y. 

Test.  Neph.  a  oirrow  obSi  |r  c«ir«i 
h>y4iatadt  voifjaai  tpya  tpoirit. 

Test.  Dan.  5  Ix"*^*'  ▼^c  Btip  r^t 

tlprfyijs. 

Test  Aier.  "j  icai  iy  i}<rvxtf  *9p- 
rpi&uv  rify  K»paX^  rov  SpdK»yr*» 
li'  68aTOt. 


So  tar  we  have  had  no  direct  citation  from  the  Epistle  by  name. 
Although  Clement  refers  expressly  to  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  Ignatius  may  refer  to  an  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
neither  they  nor  Polycarp,  nor  in  fact  any  other  writer,  expressly 
mentions  Romans.  It  is  with  Marcion  {c.  140)  that  we  obtain 
our  first  direct  evidence.  Romans  was  one  of  the  ten  Epistles 
he  included  in  his  Apostolicon,  ascribing  it  directly  to  St.  Paul. 
Nor  have  we  any  reason  to  think  that  he  originated  the  idea  of 
making  a  collection  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  The  very  fact,  as 
Zahn  points  out,  that  he  gives  the  same  short  titles  to  the  Epistles 
that  we  find  in  our  oldest  MSS.  (7rp6s  panalovs)  implies  that  these 
had  formed  part  of  a  collection.  Such  a  title  would  not  be 
sufficient  unless  the  books  were  included  in  a  collection  which  had 
a  distinguishing  title  of  its  own.  In  the  Apostolicon  of  Marcion  the 
Epistles  were  arranged  in  the  following  order:  (i)  Gal.,  (2)  i  Cor., 
(3)  2  Cor.,  (4)  Rom.,  (5)  i  Thess.,  (6)  2  Thess.,  (7)  Laodic.  = 
Ephes.,  (8)  Col.,  (9)  PhiL,   (10)   Philem.     The  origin  of  this 


Ixxxiv  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  8k 

Arrangement  we  cannot  conjecture  with  any  certainty ;  but  it  may 
be  noted  that  the  Epistle  placed  first — the  Galatians — is  the  one  on 
which  Marcion  primarily  rested  his  case  and  in  which  the  anti- 
judaism  of  St.  Paul  is  most  prominent,  while  the  four  Epistles  of  the 
Captivity  are  grouped  together  at  the  conclusion.  Another  interest- 
ing point  is  the  text  of  the  Epistles  used  by  Marcion.  We  need 
not  stop  to  discuss  the  question  whether  the  charge  against  Marcion 
of  excising  large  portions  of  the  Epistles  is  correct.  That  he  did 
so  is  undoubted.  In  the  Romans  particularly  he  omitted  chaps, 
i.  19-ii.  i;  iii.  31-iv.  25;  ix.  1-33;  x.  5-xi.  33;  xv.-xvi.  Nor 
again  can  we  doubt  that  he  omitted  and  altered  short  passages  in 
order  to  harmonize  the  teaching  with  his  own.  For  instance,  in 
X.  2,  3  he  seems  to  have  read  dyvoovvrtt  yap  t6v  Qtov.  Both  these 
statements  must  be  admitted.  But  two  further  questions  remain  ; 
Can  we  in  any  case  arrive  at  the  text  of  the  Epistles  used  by 
Marcion,  and  has  Marcion's  text  influenced  the  variations  of  our 
MSS.  ?  An  interesting  reading  from  this  point  of  view  is  the  omis- 
sion of  npcoTov  in  i.  16  (see  the  notes,  p.  24).  Is  this  a  case  where 
his  reading  has  influenced  our  MSS.,  or  does  he  preserve  an  early 
variation  or  even  the  original  text  ? 

We  need  not  pursue  the  history  of  the  Epistle  further.  From  the 
time  of  Irenaeus  onwards  we  have  full  and  complete  citations  in 
all  the  Church  writers.  The  Epistle  is  recognized  as  being  by 
St.  Paul,  is  looked  upon  as  canonical  ^  and  is  a  groundwork  o( 
Christian  theology. 

One  more  question  remains  to  be  discussed — its  place  in  the 
collection  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  According  to  the  Muratorian 
fragment  on  the  Canon  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  were  early  divided 
into  two  groups,  those  to  churches  and  those  to  individuals ;  and 
this  division  permanently  influenced  the  arrangement  in  the  Canon, 
accounting  of  course  incidentally  for  the  varying  place  occupied  by 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  It  is  with  the  former  group  only  that 
we  are  concerned,  and  here  we  find  that  there  is  a  very  marked 
variation  in  the  order.  Speaking  roughly  the  earlier  lists  all  place 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  at  the  end  of  the  collection,  whilst  later 
lists,  as  for  example  the  Canon  of  the  received  text,  place  it 
at  the  beginning. 

For  the  earlier  list  our  principal  evidence  is  the  Muratorian 
fragment  on  the  Canon  :  cum  ipse  beatus  apostolus  Paulus,  sequms 
prodecessoris  sui  loha^mis  ordinem,  nonnisi  nominatim  septem  eccksiis 
scribat  or  dine  tali:  ad  Connthios  \prima).  ad  Ephesios  {secunda),  ad 
Philippenses  itertia),  ad  Colossaises  iquarta),  ad  Galatas  {quinta),  ad 
Tfussalonicenses  [sexta),   ad  Rofnanos   {septima).     Nor   does   this 

'  Ob  Harnack's  theory  that  the  Pauline  Epistles  had  at  the  close  of  the 
wcond  centnry  less  canonical  anthority  than  the  Gospels,  sec  Sanday,  Bamptem 
Luturtt,  pp  ao,  66. 


^  0.]  INTEGRITY  IxxxV 

Stand  alone.  The  same  place  apparently  was  occupied  by  Romans 
in  the  collection  used  by  TertuUian,  probably  in  that  of  Cyprian, 
It  is  suggested  that  it  influenced  the  order  of  Marcion,  who  per- 
haps found  in  his  copy  of  the  Epistles  Corinthians  standing  first, 
while  the  position  of  Romans  at  the  end  may  be  implied  in 
a  passage  of  Origen. 

The  later  order  (Rom.,  Cor.,  Gal.,  Eph.,  Phil.,  Col.,  Thess.)  is 
that  of  all  writers  from  the  fourth  century  onwards,  and,  with  the 
exception  of  changes  caused  by  the  insertion  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  of  certain  small  variations  which  do  not  affect  the 
point  under  discussion,  of  all  Greek  MSS.,  and  of  all  MSS.  of 
Versions.  This  widespread  testimony  implies  an  early  date.  But 
the  arrangement  is  clearly  not  traditional.  It  is  roughly  based  on 
the  length  of  the  Epistles,  the  Romans  coming  first  as  being  the 
longer. 

The  origin  of  the  early  order  is  by  no  means  clear.  Zahn's 
conjecture,  that  it  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  collection  of  Pauline 
Epistles  was  first  made  at  Corinth,  is  ingenious  but  not  conclusive, 
while  Clem.  Rom.  47,  which  he  cites  in  support  of  his  theory,  will 
hardly  prove  as  much  as  he  wishes  \ 

To  sum  up  briefly.  During  the  first  century  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  was  known  and  used  in  Rome  and  perhaps  elsewhere. 
During  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century  we  find  it  forming 
part  of  a  collection  of  Pauline  Epistles  used  by  the  principal  Church 
writers  of  that  time  in  Antioch,  in  Rome,  in  Smyrna,  probably  also 
in  Corinth.  By  the  middle  of  that  century  it  had  been  included  in 
an  abbreviated  form  in  Marcion's  Apostolicon  \  by  the  end  it  appears 
to  be  definitely  accepted  as  canonicaL 


\  9.   Integrity  of  the  Epistle. 

The  tnrvey  which  has  been  given  of  the  literary  history  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  makes  it  perfectly  clear  that  the  external  evidence  in  favour  of  its 
esrly  date  is  not  only  relatively  but  absolutely  very  strong.  Setting  aside 
doubtful  quotations,  almost  every  Christian  writer  of  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century  makes  use  of  it;  it  was  contained  in  Marcion's  canon;  and 
when  Christian  literature  becomes  extensive,  the  quotations  are  almost 
numerous  enough  to  enable  us  to  reconstruct  the  whole  Epistle.  So  strung 
is  this  evidence  and  so  clear  are  the  internal  marks  of  authenticity  that  the 
Epistle  (with  the  exception  of  the  last  two  chapters  ol  which  we  shall  speak 
presently)  has  been  almost  universally  admitted  to  be  a  genuine  work  ol 
St.  Paul.  It  was  accepted  as  such  by  Baur,  and  in  consequence  by  all  member:] 
of  the  Tiibingen  school ;  it  is  accepted  at  the  present  day  by  critics  of  every 
variety  of  opinion,  by  Hilgenfeld,  Holtzmann,  Weizsacker,  Lipsius,  Harnask 
M  definitely  as  by  those  who  are  usually  classed  as  conservative. 

'  On  this  tabject  ace  Zahn,  GiathichU,  &c^  U.  p.  344. 


bcxXVi  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [§  9 

To  this  general  acceptance  there  have  been  few  exceptions.  The  earliest  writei 
who  denied  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  appears  to  have  been  the  English- 
man Evanson  (1792).  The  arguments  on  which  he  relied  are  mainly  historical. 
The  Epistle  implies  the  existence  of  a  Church  in  Rome,  but  we  Itiuiw  from  the 
Acts  that  no  such  Church  existed.  Eciually  impossible  is  it  that  St.  Paul 
should  have  known  such  a  number  of  persons  in  Rome,  or  that  Aqnila 
and  Priscilla  should  have  been  there  at  this  time.  He  interprets  xvi.  13 
literally,  and  asks  why  the  aged  mother  of  the  Apostle  should  have  wandered 
to  Rome.  He  thinks  that  xi.  la,  15,  21,  23  must  have  been  written  after  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem '.  The  same  thesis  was  maintained  by  Bruno  Bauer  *,  and 
has  been  revived  at  the  present  day  by  certain  Dutch  and  Swiss  theologians, 
notably  Loman  and  Steck. 

Loman  (1882)  denied  the  historical  reality  of  Christ,  and  considered  that  all 
the  Paoline  Epistles  dated  from  the  second  centory.  Christianity  itself  was  *h« 
embodiment  of  certain  Jewish  ideas.  St.  Paul  was  a  real  person  who  lived  at 
the  time  usually  ascribed  to  him,  but  he  did  not  write  the  Epistles  which  bear 
his  name.  That  he  should  have  done  so  at  such  an  early  period  in  the  history 
of  Christianity  would  demand  a  miracle  to  account  for  its  history ;  a  statement 
which  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  to  refute.  Loman's  arguments  appear  to 
be  the  silence  of  the  Acts,  and  in  the  case  of  the  Romans  the  inconsistency  of 
the  various  sections  with  one  another  ;  the  differences  of  opinion  which  had  arisen 
with  regard  to  the  composition  of  the  Roman  Church  prove  (he  argues)  that 
there  is  no  clear  historical  situation  implied '.  Steck  (1888)  has  devoted  himself 
primarily  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  which  he  condenms  as  inconsistent 
with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  dependent  upon  the  other  leading  Epistles, 
but  he  incidentally  examines  these  also.  All  alike  he  puts  in  the  second 
century,  arranging  them  in  the  following  order : — Romana,  i  Corinthians, 
a  Corinthians,  Galatians.  All  alike  are  he  says  built  up  under  the  influence  of 
Jewish  and  Heathen  writers,  and  he  finds  passages  in  the  Romans  borrowed 
from  Philo,  Seneca,  and  Jewish  Apocryphal  works  to  which  he  assigns  a  late 
date — such  as  the  Aisumpti*  I\!osis  and  4  Ezra*.  Akin  to  these  theories 
which  deny  completely  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle,  are  similar  ones  also 
having  their  origin  for  the  most  part  in  Holland,  which  find  large  interpolations 
in  our  present  text  and  profess  to  distmguish  different  recensions.  Earliest  of 
these  was  Weisse  (1867),  who  in  addition  to  certain  more  reasonable  theories 
with  regard  to  the  concluding  chapters,  professed  to  be  able  to  distinguish  by 
the  evidence  of  style  the  genuine  from  the  interpolated  portions  of  the  Epistle  *. 
His  example  has  been  followed  with  greater  indiscreetness  by  Pierson  and 
Naber(i886\  Michelsen  (1886),  Voelter  (1889,  90),  Van  Manen  (1891). 

Pierson  and  Naber^  basing  their  theory  on  some  slight  allusions  in  Josephm, 
consider  that  there  existed  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  a  school 
of  elevated  Jewish  thinkers,  who  produced  a  large  number  of  apparently 
fragmentary  works  distinguished  by  their  lofty  religious  tone.  These  were 
made  use  of  by  a  certain  Paulus  Episcopus,  a  Christian  who  incorporated  them 

*  Evanson  (Edward),  7>l«  Distvnamct  cf  the  four  gnurally  rueioed  Ewom- 
g$listt  esamined,  Ed.  i,  179a,  pp.  357-261;  Ed  2,  1805,  pp.  306-313. 

*  Bruno  Bauer,  Kritik  d*r  paul.  Brief e^  185a.  Ckristus  und  die  Casartm, 
p.  373. 

■  Loman  (A.  D.),  QwusHohu  Pauliiuu,  TJUckfisch  Tijdschrift,  i88a,  1883, 
1886. 

*  Steck  (Rudolf),  Dt  GaUUerbrief  natk  seiner  Echthtit  untertuckt.  Berlin, 
1888. 

*  Weisse  (C.  H.\  Beitrdge  tur  Kritik  der  Paulinischen  Brief e  mm  die 
GtdaUr,  Komer,  Philipper  und  Kolosstr.     Leipzig,  1867. 

*  Verisitnili*,  Leueram  conditionem  Nam  Tettamenti  exkikteUiei.  A.  Piettoa, 
^  «.  A.  Naber,  Amstelodami,  1886 


*•! 


INTEGRITY  Ixxxvii 


ia  letter*  which  he  wrote  ia  order  to  make  cp  for  his  own  povertj*  of  religioM 

uid  philosophical  ideas.  An  examination  of  their  treatment  of  a  single  chapter 
may  be  appended.  The  basis  of  ch.  ti  is  a  Jewish  fragment  {admodum 
wumcrabile)  which  extends  from  ver.  3  to  ver.  11.  This  fragment  Paulus 
Episcopns  treated  in  his  usual  manner.  He  begins  with  the  foolish  question 
of  ver.  3  which  shows  that  he  does  not  understand  the  argument  that  follows. 
He  added  interpolations  in  ver.  4.  /(idem  odoratnur  tnanum  eius  ver.  5. 
If  we  omit  t^  dfioiwftan  in  ver.  6  the  difficulty  in  it  vanishes.  Ver.  8  again  ia 
feeble  and  therefore  was  the  work  of  Paulus  Episcopus :  non  enim  credimut 
mts  esst  victttret,  ted  novimus  nos  vivere  ver.  11).  w.  11-23  with  the  ex- 
ception apparently  of  ver.  14,  15  which  have  been  misplaced,  are  the  work 
of  this  interpolator  who  spoiled  the  Jewish  fragment,  and  in  these  verses 
adapts  what  has  preceded  to  the  nses  of  the  Church^.  It  will  probably  not 
be  thought  necessary  to  parsue  this  subject  further. 

Michelsen  *  basing  bis  theory  to  a  certain  extent  on  the  phenomena  of  the 
Uat  two  chapters  considered  that  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century 
three  recennoni  of  the  Epistle  were  in  existence.  The  Eastern  containing 
ch.  i-xri  94;  the  Western  ch.  i-xiv  and  xvi.  25-37;  the  Marcionite  ch. 
i-xiT.  The  redactor  who  put  together  these  recensions  was  however  also 
responsible  for  a  considerable  number  of  interpolations  which  Michelsen 
undertakes  to  distinguish.  Volter's  theory  is  more  elaborate.  The  original 
Epistle  according  to  him  contained  the  following  portions  of  the  Epistle. 
i.  la,  7;  5,6;  8-17;  V.  and  vi.  (except  v.  13,  14,  20;  vi.  14,  15):  xii,  xiii; 
«v.  14-33  ;  xri.  ai-33.  This  bears  all  the  marks  of  originality;  its  Christology 
is  primitive,  free  from  any  theory  of  pre-existence  or  of  two  natures.  To  the 
first  interpolator  we  owe  i.  18;  iii.  20  (except  ii.  14,  15);  viii.  1,  3-39; 
L  ib-4.  Here  the  Christology  is  different ;  Christ  is  the  pre-existent  Son  ol 
God.  To  the  second  interpolator  we  owe  iii.  21 — iv.  25;  v.  13,  14,  30;  vi. 
14,  15  ;  Tii  1-6 ;  ix.  X ;  xiv.  i — xt.  6.  This  writer  who  worked  about  the  year 
70  wai  a  determined  Antinomian,  who  could  not  see  anything  but  evil  in  the 
Law.  A  third  interpolator  is  responsible  for  vii.  7-25  ;  viii.  2  ;  a  fourth  for 
zi;  ii  14,  15;  XT.  7-13;  a  hfth  for  xvi.  1-20;  a  sixth  for  xvi.  34;  a  seventh 
for  xtL  35-37. 

Van  Manen  *  is  distinguished  for  his  vigorous  attacks  on  his  predecessors  ;  and 
for  basing  his  own  theory  of  interpolations  on  a  reconstruction  of  the  Marcionite 
text  which  he  holds  to  be  original. 

It  has  been  somewhat  tedious  work  enumerating  these  theories,  which  will 
■eem  probably  to  most  readers  hardly  worth  while  repeating;  so  subjective 
and  arbitrary  is  the  whole  criticism.  The  only  conclusion  that  we  can  arrive 
at  is  that  if  early  Christian  documents  have  been  systematically  tampered  with 
in  a  manner  which  would  justify  any  one  of  these  theories,  then  the  study  oi 
Christian  history  would  be  futile.  There  is  no  criterion  of  style  or  of  language 
which  enables  us  to  distinguish  a  document  from  the  interpolations,  and  wc 
should  be  compelled  to  make  use  of  a  number  of  writings  which  we  could  not 
either  trust  or  criticize.  If  the  documents  are  not  trustworthy,  neither  is  our 
criticism. 

But  such  a  feeling  of  distrust  is  not  necessary,  and  it  may  be  worth  while  to 
conclude  this  subject  by  pointing  out  certain  reasons  which  enable  us  to  feel 
confident  in  most  at  any  rate  of  the  documents  of  early  Christianity. 

»  Op.  eit.,  pp.  139-143- 

•  Michelsen  (J.  H.  A.),  Tktologisth  Tijdschrift,  1886,  pp.  37a  ft,  473  ft; 

1887,  p.  163  ff. 

'  Voelter  (Daniel),  Theologisch  Tijdschrift,  1889,  p.  365 ff.;  and  DU  Com- 
position der pcml.  Hauptbriefe,  I.     Dir  Romer-  und  Gakzterbrief,  1890. 

*  Van  Manen  (W.  C.),  Theologisch  Tijdschrift,  1887.  Marcion's  Brief  van 
Paulus  aan  dt  Galatiis,  pp.  .^82-404,  451-5^4;  and  Faultu  II,  D»  Mef 
mam  d»  Rimimtm.    Leiden,  1891. 


Ixxxviii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  8t 

It  has  been  pointed  ont  that  interpolation  theories  are  not  as  absord  as  they 
might  prima  facU  be  held  to  be,  for  we  have  instances  of  the  process  actually 
taking  place.  The  obvions  examples  are  the  Ignatian  letters.  But  these  are 
not  solitary,  almost  the  whole  of  the  Apocryphal  literature  has  undergone  the 
same  process ;  so  have  the  Acts  of  the  Saints ;  so  has  the  Didache  for  example 
when  included  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions.  Nor  are  we  without  evidence  of 
interpolations  in  the  N.  T. ;  the  phenomenon  of  the  Western  text  present! 
exactly  the  same  characteristics.  May  we  not  then  expect  the  same  to  hare 
happened  in  other  cases  where  we  have  little  or  no  information?  Now  in 
dealing  with  a  document  which  has  come  down  to  as  in  a  single  MS.  or 
version,  or  on  any  slight  traditional  evidence  this  possibility  must  always  be 
considered,  and  it  is  necessary  to  be  cautious  in  arguing  from  a  single  passage 
in  a  text  which  may  have  been  interpolated.  Those  who  doubted  the  genuinenesa 
of  the  Armenian  fragment  of  Aristides  for  example,  on  the  grounds  that  it 
contained  the  word  Theotokos,  have  been  proved  to  be  wrong,  for  that  word  as 
was  suspected  by  many  has  now  been  shown  to  have  been  interpolated. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  N.  T.  we  have  so  many  authorities  going  back  in- 
dependently to  such  an  early  period,  that  it  is  most  improbable  that  any 
important  variation  in  the  text  could  escape  our  knowledge.  The  different 
lines  of  text  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles  must  have  separated  as  early  as  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century  ;  and  we  shall  see  shortly  that  one  displacement 
in  the  text,  which  must  have  been  early,  and  may  have  been  very  early,  has 
influenced  almost  all  subsequent  documents.  The  number,  the  variety,  and 
the  early  character  of  the  texts  preserved  to  us  in  MSS.,  Versions,  and  Fathers, 
is  a  guarantee  that  a  text  formed  on  critical  methods  represents  within  very 
narrow  limits  the  work  as  it  left  its  author's  hands. 

A  second  line  of  argument  which  is  used  in  favour  of  interpolation  theories 
is  the  difficulty  and  obscurity  of  some  passages.  No  doubt  there  are  passages 
which  are  difficult ;  but  it  is  surely  very  gratuitous  to  imagine  that  everything 
which  is  genuine  is  easy.  The  whole  tendency  of  textual  criticism  is  to  prove 
that  it  is  the  custom  of  *  redactors'  or  'correctors'  or  '  interpolators'  to  produce 
a  text  which  is  always  superficially  at  any  rate  more  easy  than  the  genuine 
text.  But  on  the  other  side,  although  the  style  of  St.  Paul  is  certainly  not 
always  perfectly  smooth ;  although  he  certamly  is  liable  to  be  carried  away  by 
a  side  issue,  to  change  the  order  of  his  thoughts,  to  leap  over  intermediate 
steps  in  his  argument,  yet  no  serious  commentators  of  whatever  school  would 
doubt  that  there  is  a  strong  sustained  argument  running  through  the  whole 
Epistle,  The  possibility  of  the  commentaries  which  have  been  written  proves 
conclusively  the  improbability  of  theories  implying  a  wide  element  of  in- 
terpolation. But  in  the  case  of  St.  Paul  we  may  go  further.  Even  where  there 
is  a  break  in  the  argument,  there  is  almost  always  a  verbal  coimexion.  When 
St.  Paul  passes  for  a  time  to  a  side  issue  there  is  a  subtle  coniiexioD  in  thought 
as  in  words  which  would  certainly  escape  an  interpolator's  observation.  This 
has  been  pointed  out  in  the  notes  on  xi.  lo;  xv.  so,  where  the  question  of 
interpolation  has  been  carefully  examined;  and  if  any  one  will  take  the 
trouble  to  go  carefully  through  the  end  of  ch.  v  and  the  beginning  of  ch.  vi, 
he  will  see  how  each  sentence  leads  on  to  the  next.  For  instance,  the  first 
part  of  V,  30,  which  is  omitted  by  some  of  these  critics,  leads  on  immediately 
to  the  second  (vXtovaari  .  .  .  iv\(6vaatv),  that  suggests  vntpcirepiaatvafy,  then 
comes  vKfovdaji  in  vi.  i ;  bnt  the  connexion  of  sin  and  death  clearly  suggests 
the  words  of  ver.  2  and  the  argument  that  follows.  The  same  process  may 
be  worked  ont  through  the  whole  Epistle.  For  the  most  part  there  is  a  clear 
and  definite  argument,  and  even  where  the  logical  continuity  is  broken  there 
is  always  a  connexion  either  in  thought  or  words.  The  Epistles  of  St  Paul 
present  for  the  most  part  a  definite  and  compact  literary  unit. 

If  to  these  arguments  we  add  the  external  evidence  which  is  given  in  detail 
above,  w«  may  feel  reasonably  confident  that  ti»  historical  cooditiona  aader 


fa.] 


INTEGRITV  bcxxix 


which  the  Epistk  hu  cone  dww*  t*  st  make  fte  tfaeoritt  af  tU>  new  school 

»f  critics  untenable '. 

We  have  laid  great  stress  on  the  complete  absence  of  any  textual  justifica- 
tions for  any  of  Uie  theories  which  have  been  so  far  noticed.  This  absence 
is  made  all  the  more  striking  by  the  existence  of  certain  variations  in  the  text 
and  certain  facts  reported  on  tradition  with  regard  to  the  last  two  chapters  of 
the  Epistle.  These  facts  are  somewhat  complex  and  to  a  certain  extent  con- 
flicting, and  a  careful  examination  of  them  and  of  the  theories  suggested  to 
explain  them  is  necessary '. 

It  will  be  convenient  first  of  all  to  enumerate  these  facts : 

(i)  The  words  tv  'Pw/*p  in  i.  y  and  15  are  omitted  by  the  bilingual  MS.  G 
both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  text  (F  is  here  defective).  Moreo\  er  the  cursive 
47  adds  in  the  margin  of  ver.  7  ri  Iv  Ti>fx^,  oirt  iv  rrj  i^rjyrjnu  ovrt  iv  t<jJ 
^i;rf;  tivrffiovtifi.  Bp.  Lightfoot  attempted  to  find  corroborative  evidence  for 
this  reading  in  Origen,  in  the  writer  cited  as  Ambrosiaster,  and  in  the  reading 
of  D  iv  a-yairj  for  a-^amjroit.  That  he  is  wrong  in  doing  so  seems  to  be  shown 
by  Dr.  Hort ;  but  it  may  be  doubtful  if  the  latter  is  correct  in  his  attempt  to 
explain  away  the  variation.  The  evidence  is  slight,  but  it  is  hardly  likely  that 
it  arose  simply  through  transcriptional  error.  If  it  occurred  only  in  one  place 
this  might  be  sufl6cient ;  if  it  occurred  only  in  one  MS.  we  might  ascribe  it  to 
the  delinquencies  of  a  single  scribe ;  as  it  is,  we  must  accept  it  as  an  existing 
variation  supported  by  slight  evidence,  bat  evidence  sufficiently  good  to 
demand  an  explanation. 

(a)  There  is  considerable  variation  in  existing  MSS.  concerning  the  place  of 
the  final  doxology  (xvi.  35-27). 

a.  In  N  B  C  D  E  minuK.  pauc.  cedd.  up.  Orig.lat.,  d  e  f  Vulg.  Pesh.  Boh. 
Aeth.,  Orig.-laL  Ambrstr.  Pelagius  it  occors  at  the  end  of  chap.  xvi.  and  there 
only. 

b.  In  L  minutt.  plus  fuam  aoo,  codd.  mp.  Orig.-lat.,  Hard.,  Chrys.  Theodrt. 
Jo.-Damasc.  it  occurs  at  the  end  of  chap,  xiv  and  there  only. 

c.  In  A  P  5.  17  Arm.  codd.  it  is  inserted  in  both  places. 

d.  In  F".  G  codd.  mp.  Hieron.  (»«  E|.h.  iiL  5),  g,  Marcion  {vidt  infrm)  it  Is 
entirely  omitted.  It  may  be  noted  that  G  leaves  a  blank  space  at  the  end  of 
chap,  xiv,  and  that  f  is  taken  direct  from  the  Vulgate,  a  space  being  left  in  F 
in  the  Greek  corresponding  to  these  verses.  Indirectly  D  and  Sedulius  also 
attest  the  omission  by  placing  the  Benediction  after  ver.  34,  a  transposition 
which  would  be  made  (sec  below)  owing  to  that  verse  being  in  these  copies 
at  the  end  of  the  Epistle. 

In  reviewing  this  evidence  it  becomes  clear  (i)  that  the  weight  of  good 
authority  is  in  favour  of  placing  this  doxology  at  tiie  end  of  the  Epistle,  and 
there  only,  (ii)  That  the  variation  in  position — a  variation  which  must  be 
explained — is  early,  probably  earlier  than  the  time  of  Origen,  although  we 
can  never  have  complete  confidence  in  Rufinus'  translation,  (iii")  That  the 
evidence  for  complete  omission  goes  back  to  Marcion,  and  that  very  prcbably 
his  excision  of  tht  words  may  have  influenced  the  omission  in  Western 
authorities. 

'  The  English  reader  will  find  a  very  full  account  of  this  Dutch  school  of 
cntics  in  Knowling,  Tlu  IVittuss  of  the  Epistles,  pp.  133-343.  A  very 
careful  compilation  of  the  results  arrived  at  is  given  by  Dr.  Carl  Clemen,  Du 
Einheitlichkeit  der  Paulinischen  Britft.  To  both  these  works  we  must 
express  our  obligations,  and  to  them  we  must  refer  any  who  wish  for  farther 
information. 

'  The  leading  discussion  tm  the  last  two  chapters  of  the  Romans  is  coB' 
tained  in  three  papers,  two  by  Bp.  Lightfoot,  and  one  by  Dr.  Hort  first 
published  in  the  Journal  of  Philology,  vols,  ii,  iii,  and  since  reprinted  ^ 
Lightfoot,  Biblical  Essays,  pp.  S87-374. 


XC  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [^  0 

(3)  There  to  Tery  considerable  eridence  that  Marcion  omitted  ^  whole  « 

the  last  two  chapters. 

a.  Origen  ( int.  Rnf.)  x.  43,  toL  vii,  p.  453,  ed.  Lomm.  writes  r  Ca/M  hM 
Marcifin,  a  quo  Scripturae  Evangelicae  atqut  Apostolicat  inttrpolatat  sunt,  dt 
hat  epistola  penitus  abstulit ;  et  non  solum  hoc,  ted  et  ab  to  loco,  ubi  tcriptum 
est:  omne  autem  quod  non  est  ex  fide,  peccatum  est :  usque  ad  finem  cunctm 
dissecuit.  In  aliis  vera  exemplaribus ,  id  est,  in  his  quae  non  sunt  a  Marcion* 
temerata,  hoc  ipsum  caput  diverse  positum  invenimus,  in  nonnullis  ttenim 
c^dicibus post  eum  locum,  quern  supra  diximus  hoc  est :  omne  autem  quod  noa 
est  ex  fide,  peccatum  est:  statim  coherens  kabetur:  ei  autem,  qui  potent  eit 
vos  confirmare.  Alii  vero  codices  in  fine  id,  ut  nunt  est  positum,  cmttintmt. 
This  extract  is  quite  precise,  nor  is  the  attempt  made  by  Hort  to  emend  it  at 
all  successful.  He  reads  in  for  ab,  having  for  this  the  support  of  a  Paris  MS., 
and  then  emends  hoc  into  hit ;  reading  tt  non  solum  hit  sed  et  in  *»  Ut;  Sec, 
and  translating  '  and  not  only  here  but  also,'  at  xiv.  23  '  he  cut  OBt  everything 
quite  to  the  end.'  He  applies  the  words  to  the  Doxology  alone.  The  changes 
in  the  text  are  slight  and  might  be  justified,  but  with  this  change  the  wordf 
that  follow  become  quite  meaningless  :  usque  ad  finem  tuntta  dissecuit  can 
only  apply  to  the  whole  of  the  two  chapterg.  If  Origen  meant  the  doxology 
alone  they  would  be  quite  pointless. 

b.  But  we  have  other  evidence  for  Marcion's  text.  TertuUian,  Adv.  Mart.  ▼. 
14,  quoting  the  words  tribunal  Christi  (xiv.  10),  states  that  they  occur  i» 
clausula  of  the  Epistle.  The  argument  is  not  conclusive  but  the  words 
probably  imply  that  in  Marcion's  copy  of  the  Epistle,  if  not  in  all  those  known 
to  TertuUian,  the  last  two  chapters  were  omitted. 

These  two  witnesses  make  it  almost  certain  that  Marcion  omitted  not  only 
the  doxology  but  the  whole  of  the  last  two  chapters. 

(4)  Some  further  evidence  has  been  brought  forward  suggesting  that  an 
edition  of  the  Epistle  was  in  circulation  which  omitted  the  last  two  chapters. 

a.  It  is  pointed  out  that  TertuUian,  Marcion,  Irenaeus,  and  probably  Cyprian 
never  quote  from  these  last  two  chapters.  The  argument  however  is  of  little 
value,  because  the  same  may  be  said  of  i  Cor.  xvi.  The  chapters  were  not 
quoted  because  there  was  little  or  nothing  in  them  to  quote. 

b.  An  argument  of  greater  weight  is  found  in  certain  systems  of  capitnla- 
tions  in  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate.  In  Codex  Amiatinus  the  table  of  contents  gives 
fifty-one  sections,  and  the  fiftieth  section  is  described  thus:  De  periculo  ctm- 
trisiante  f rat  rem  suum  esca  sua,  et  quod  non  sit  regnum  Dei  esca  et  potus  sed 
iustitia  et  pax  et  gaudium  in  Spiritu  Sancto  ;  this  is  followed  by  the  fifty-first 
and  last  section,  which  is  described  as  De  mysterio  Domini  ante  passionem  in 
iiletitio  hahito,  post passionem  vero  ipsius  revelato.  The  obvious  deduction  is 
that  this  system  was  drawn  up  for  a  copy  which  omitted  the  greater  part  at  any 
ratf  of  cha;  s.  xv  and  xvi.  This  system  appears  to  have  prevailed  very  widely. 
In  the  Codex  Fuldtnsis  there  are  given  in  the  table  of  contents  fifty-one 
sections:  of  these  the  first  twenty-three  include  the  whole  Epistle  up  to  the 
end  of  chap,  xiv,  the  last  sentence  being  headed  Quod  fide les  Dei  non  debeani 
invicem  iudicare  cum  umisquisque  secundum  regulas  mandatorum  ipse  st 
debd'it  divino  iudicio  praeparare  ut  ante  tribunal  Dei  sine  confusiane  possit 
tperutn  suorum  praestare  rationem.  Then  follow  the  last  twenty-eight  sections 
of  the  Amiatine  sy^item,  beginning  with  the  twenty-fourth  at  ix.  I.  Hence 
chaps,  ix  xiv  are  described  twice.  The  Bcribt-  seems  to  have  had  before  him 
an  otherwise  unrecorded  system  which  only  embraced  fourteen  chapters,  and 
then  added  the  remainder  from  where  he  could  get  them  in  order  to  make  np 
what  he  felt  to  be  the  right  number  of  fifty-one. 

Both  these  systems  seem  to  exclude  the  Ust  two  ckapteti,  whatertr  leasoa 
«•  may  give  for  the  phenomenon. 

(5)  Lastly,  some  critics  have  discovered  a  certain  amotmt  of  significance 
in  two  other  points. 


§».] 


INTEGRITY  3Ki 


a.  The  piayer  at  the  end  of  chap,  xv  is  supposed  to  represent,  either  with 
or  without  the  afir^v  (which  is  omitted  in  some  MSS.,  probably  incorrectly),  a 
conclusion  of  the  Epistle.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  formula  does  not  represent 
any  known  form  of  ending,  and  may  be  paralleled  from  places  in  the  body  of 
the  Epistle. 

b.  The  two  conclusions  xvi.  20  and  24  of  the  T  R  are  supposed  to  represent 
endings  to  two  diflfeient  recensions  of  the  Epistle.  But  as  will  be  seen  by 
referring  to  the  note  on  the  passage,  this  is  based  upon  a  misreading.  The 
reading  of  the  T  R  is  a  late  conflation  of  the  two  older  forms  of  the  text  The 
benediction  stood  originally  at  ver.  20  and  only  there,  the  verses  that  followed 
being  a  sort  of  postscript.  Certain  MSS.  which  were  without  the  doxology  (see 
above)  moved  it  to  their  end  of  the  Epistle  after  ver.  23,  while  certain  othen 
placed  it  after  ver.  27.  The  double  benediction  of  the  TR  arose  by  the 
ordinary  process  of  conflation.  The  significance  of  this  in  corroborating  the 
existence  of  an  early  text  which  omitted  the  doxology  has  been  pointed  ont ; 
otherwise  these  verses  will  not  support  the  deductions  made  from  them  bj 
Renan,  Gifford,  and  others. 

The  above,  stated  as  shortly  as  possible,  are  the  diplomatic  facts  which 
demand  explanation.  Already  in  the  seventeenth  century  some  at  any  rate  had 
attracted  notice,  and  Semler  (1769),  Griesbach  (1777)  and  others  developed 
elaborate  theories  to  account  for  them.  To  attempt  to  enumerate  all  the 
different  views  would  be  beside  our  purpose :  it  will  be  more  convenient  to 
confine  ourselves  to  certain  typical  illustrations. 

I.  An  hypothesis  which  would  account  for  most  (although  not  all)  of  the 
facts  stated  would  be  to  suppose  that  the  last  two  chapters  were  not  genuine. 
This  opinion  was  held  by  Baur  *,  although,  as  was  usual  with  him,  on  purely 
m  priori  grounds,  and  with  an  only  incidental  reference  to  the  MS.  evidence 
which  might  have  been  the  strongest  support  of  his  theory.  The  main  motive 
which  induced  him  to  excise  them  was  the  expression  in  xv.  8  that  Christ  was 
made  'a  minister  of  circumcision,'  which  is  inconsistent  with  his  view  of 
St.  Paul's  doctrine ;  and  he  supported  his  contention  by  a  vigorous  examina- 
tion of  the  style  and  contents  of  these  two  chapters.  His  arguments  have  been 
noticed  (so  far  as  seemed  necessary)  in  the  commentary.  But  the  consensus  of 
a  large  number  of  critics  in  condemning  the  result  may  excuse  our  pursuing 
them  in  further  detail.  Doctrinally  his  views  were  only  consistent  with  a  one- 
sided theory  of  the  Pauline  position  and  teaching,  and  if  that  theory  is  given 
ap  then  his  arguments  become  untenable.  As  regards  his  literary  criticism  the 
opinion  of  Renan  may  be  accepted :  '  On  est  surpris  qu'nn  critique  aussi 
habile  que  Baur  se  soit  content^  d'une  solution  aussi  grossi^re.  Pourqnoi  on 
faussaire  aurait-il  invente  de  si  insignificants  details  t  Pourqnoi  aurait-il  ajont^ 
4  I'ouvrage  sacre  une  liste  de  noms  propres  '  ? '. 

But  we  are  not  without  strong  positive  arguments  in  favour  of  the  gennine 
ness  of  at  any  rate  the  fifteenth  chapter.  In  the  first  place  a  careful 
examination  of  the  first  thirteen  verses  shows  conclusively  that  they  are  closely 
connected  with  the  previous  chapter.  The  break  after  xiv.  33  is  purely  arbi- 
trary, and  the  passage  that  follows  to  the  end  of  ver.  6  is  merely  a  conclusion 
of  the  previous  argument,  without  which  the  former  chapter  is  incomplete,  and 
which  it  is  inconceivable  that  an  interpolator  could  have  either  been  able  01 
desired  to  insert;  while  in  w.  7-13  the  Apostle  connects  the  special  subject 
of  which  he  has  been  treating  with  the  general  condition  of  the  Church,  and 
supports  his  main  contention  by  a  series  of  texts  drawn  from  the  O.  T.  Both 
in  the  appeal  to  Scripture  and  in  the  introduction  of  broad  and  general  prin- 
ciples  this  conclusion  may  be  exactly  paralleled  by  the  custom  of  St.  Paol 
elsewhere  in  the  Epistle.     No  theory  therefore  can  be  accepted  which  doc*  nol 

'  TkeologischM  Ztitung,  1836,  pp.  97,  144.     Paulus,  1866,  pp.  39Sft 
'  St.  Paul,  p.  Ixxi,  quoted  by  Lightfoot,  Biblical  Essays,  p.  a9a 


XCO  EPISTLB  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  •. 

fccogiiise  that  xtf  and  zr.  13  form  a  angle  paragraph  which  mast  not  ba 
•plit  op. 

But  farther  than  this  the  remainder  of  chap,  zv  shows  every  sign  of  being 
a  genuine  work  of  the  Apostle.  The  argument  of  Paley  based  upon  the  collec- 
tion for  the  poor  Christians  at  Jerusalem  is  in  this  case  almost  demonstrative 
(see  p.  xxxvi).  The  reference  to  the  Apostle's  intention  of  visiting  Spain,  to  the 
circamstances  in  which  he  is  placed,  the  dangers  he  is  expecting,  his  hope  of 
visiting  Rome  fulfilled  in  such  a  very  different  manner,  are  all  inconsistent  with 
spuriousness ;  while  most  readers  will  feel  in  the  personal  touches,  in  the 
combination  of  boldness  in  asserting  his  mission  with  consideration  for  the 
feelings  of  his  readers,  in  the  strong  and  deep  emotions  which  are  occasionally 
allowed  to  come  to  the  surface,  all  the  most  characteristic  marks  of  tlic 
Apostle's  writing. 

Baur's  views  were  followed  by  von  Schwegler,  Holsten,  2^11er,  and  others, 
but  have  been  rejected  by  Mangold,  Hilgenfeld,  Pfleiderer,  Weizsacker,  and 
Lipsius.  A  modified  form  is  put  forward  by  Lucht ',  who  considers  that  parts 
•re  genuine  and  part  spurious  :  in  fact  he  applies  the  interpolation  theory  to 
these  two  chapters  (being  followed  to  a  slight  extent  by  Lipsius).  Against 
any  such  theory  the  arguments  are  conclusive.  It  has  all  the  disadvantages  of 
the  broader  theory  and  does  not  either  solve  the  problem  suggested  by  the  manu- 
script evidence  or  receive  support  from  it.  For  the  rejection  of  the  last  two 
chapters  as  a  whole  there  is  some  support,  as  we  have  seen  ;  for  believing  that 
they  contain  interpolations  (except  in  a  form  to  be  considered  immediately)  there 
is  no  external  evidence.  There  is  no  greater  need  for  suspecting  interpolatioiia 
in  chap,  xv  than  in  chap.  xiv. 

3.  We  may  dismiss  then  all  such  theories  as  imply  the  spuriousness  of  the  lait 
two  chapters  and  may  pass  on  to  a  second  group  which  explains  the  pheno* 
menji  of  the  MSS.  by  supposing  that  our  Epistle  has  grown  up  through  th* 
combination  of  different  letters  or  parts  of  letters  either  all  addressed  to  the 
Roman  Church,  or  addressed  partly  to  the  Roman  Church,  partly  elsewhere. 
An  elaborate  and  typical  theory  of  this  sort,  and  one  which  has  the  merit  of 
explaining  all  the  facts,  is  that  of  Kenan  ^.  He  supposes  that  the  so-called 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  a  circular  letter  and  that  it  existed  in  four  different 
forms : 

(i)  A  letter  to  the  Romans.    This  contained  chap,  i-xi  and  chap,  xw, 
(ii)  A  letter  to  the  Ephesians.     Chap,  i-xiv  and  xvi.  i-ao. 
f  iii)  A  letter  to  the  Thessalonians.     Chap,  i-xiv  and  xvi.  2  i-a4. 
(iv)  A  letter  to  an  unknown  church.     Chap,  i-xiv  and  xvi.  25-37. 

In  the  last  three  letters  there  would  of  course  be  some  modificationi  Id 
chap,  i,  of  which  we  have  a  reminiscence  in  the  variations  of  the  MS.  G. 

This  theory  is  supported  by  the  following  amongst  other  arguments  : 

(i)  We  know,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  that  St.  Paul 
wrote  circular  letters,  (ii)  The  Epistle  as  we  have  it  has  four  endings,  xv.  33, 
xvi.  ao,  34,  35-37.  Each  of  these  really  represented  the  ending  of  a  separate 
Epistle,  (iii)  There  are  strong  internal  grounds  for  believing  that  xvi  i-ao 
was  addressed  to  the  Ephesian  Church,  (iv)  The  Macedonian  names  occurring 
in  xvL  a  1-24  suggest  that  these  verses  were  addressed  to  a  Macedonian 
church,  (v)  This  explains  how  it  came  to  be  that  such  an  elaborate  letter 
was  sent  to  a  church  of  which  St.  Paul  had  such  little  knowledge  as  that 
of  Rome. 

This  theory  has  one  advantage,  that  It  accounts  for  all  the  facts ;  but  there 
are  two  arguments  against  it  which  are  absolutely  conclusive.  One  is  that 
there  are  not  four  endings  in  the  Epistle  at  all ;  zv.  33  ii  not  like  any  of  the 

*  Lucht,  t^^  die  btiden  Uttttm  CapUtldu  RomerbrUfi,  1871. 
"  Renan,  St.  Paul,  pp.  Ixiii  ff.    This  theory  it  examined  at  great  length  bf 
l|p.  LightiiDOt,  tf.  cit.  pp.  193  C 


§•] 


INTEGRITY  XcHI 


ending!  of  St  Paart  Epiitlet ;  while,  as  is  shows  aboTe,  the  origin  of  th« 
dnplicate  benediction,  xvi.  30  and  34,  mnst  be  explained  on  purely  textual 
grounds.  If  Renan's  theory  had  been  correct  then  we  shonld  not  have  both 
benedictions  in  the  late  MSS.  but  in  the  earlier.  As  it  is,  it  is  clear  that  the 
duplication  simply  arose  from  conflation.  A  second  argument,  in  our  opinion 
equally  conclusive  against  this  theory,  is  that  it  separates  chap,  xir  from  the 
first  thirteen  verses  of  chap.  xr.  The  arguments  on  this  subject  need  not  be 
repeated,  but  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  they  are  as  conclusive  against  Renan's 
hypothesis  as  against  that  of  Baur. 

3.  Renan's  theory  has  not  received  s/^s^ptance,  but  there  is  one  portion  of  it 
which  has  been  more  generally  held  than  any  other  with  regard  to  these  final 
chapters;  that  namely  which  considers  that  the  list  of  names  in  chap,  xri 
belongs  to  a  letter  addressed  to  Ephesus  and  not  to  one  addressed  to  Rome.  This 
view,  first  put  forward  by  Schulz(i829),  has  been  adopted  by  Ewald,  Mangold, 
Laurent,  Hitzig,  Reuss,  Ritschl,  Lucht,  Holsten,  Lipsius,  Krenkel,  Kneucker, 
Weiss,  Weizsacker,  Farrar.  It  has  two  forms;  some  hold  ver.  i,  a  to  belong 
to  the  Romans,  others  consider  them  also  part  of  the  Ephesian  letter.  Nor  is 
it  quite  certain  where  the  Ephesian  fragment  ends.  Some  consider  that  it 
includes  vv.  17-ai,  others  make  it  stop  at  ver.  16. 

The  arguments  in  favour  of  this  view  are  as  follows:  i.  It  is  pointed  ont 
that  it  is  hardly  likely  that  St.  Paul  should  have  been  acquainted  with  such 
a  large  number  of  persons  in  a  church  like  that  of  Rome  which  he  had  never 
visited,  and  that  this  feeling  is  corroborated  by  the  number  of  personal  details 
that  he  adds;  references  to  companions  in  captivity,  to  relations,  to  fellow- 
labourers.  All  these  allusions  are  easily  explicable  on  the  theory  that  the 
Epistle  is  addressed  to  the  Ephesian  Church,  but  not  if  it  be  addressed  to  the 
Roman,  a.  This  opinion  is  corroborated,  it  is  said,  by  an  examination  of  the 
list  itself.  Aquila  and  Priscilla  and  the  church  that  is  in  their  house  are  men- 
tioned shortly  before  this  date  as  being  at  Ephesus,  and  shortly  afterwards  they 
are  again  mentioned  as  being  in  the  same  city  (i  Cor.  xvi  19;  a  Tim.  iv.  19). 
The  very  next  name  Epaenetus  is  clearly  described  as  a  native  of  the  province 
of  Asia.  Of  the  others  many  are  Jewish,  many  Greek,  and  it  is  more  likely 
that  they  should  be  natives  of  Ephesus  than  natives  of  Rome.  3.  That  the 
warning  against  false  teachers  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  letter,  which  elsewhere  never  refers  to  false  teachers  as  being  at  work  in 
Rome. 

In  examining  this  hypothesis  we  must  notice  at  once  that  it  does  not  in 
any  way  help  us  to  solve  the  textual  difficulties,  and  receives  no  assistance 
from  them.  The  problems  of  the  concluding  doxol(^  and  of  the  omission  of 
the  last  two  chapters  remain  as  they  were.  It  is  only  if  we  insert  a  bene- 
iiction  both  at  ver.  ao  and  at  ver.  34  that  we  get  any  assistance.  In  that  case 
we  might  explain  the  duplicate  benediction  by  supposing  that  the  first  was 
the  conclusion  of  the  Ephesian  letter,  the  second  the  conclusion  of  the  Roman. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  textual  phenomena  do  not  support  this  view.  The  theory 
therefore  mnst  be  examined  on  its  own  merits,  and  the  burden  of  proof  is 
thrown  on  the  opponents  of  the  Roman  destination  of  the  Epistle,  for  as  has 
been  shown  the  only  critical  basis  we  can  start  from,  in  discussing  St  Paul's 
Epistles,  is  that  they  have  come  down  to  us  substantially  in  the  form  in 
which  they  were  written  unless  very  strong  evidence  is  brought  forward  to  the 
contrary. 

But  this  evidence  cannot  be  called  very  strong.  It  is  admitted  by  Weiss 
and  Mangold,  for  instance,  that  the  a  pricri  arguments  against  St.  Paul's 
acquaintance  with  some  twenty-four  persons  in  the  Roman  community  are  of 
slight  weight.  Christianity  was  preached  amongst  just  that  portion  of  the 
population  of  the  Empire  which  would  be  most  nomadic  in  character.  It  is 
admitted  again  that  it  would  be  natural  that,  in  writing  to  a  strange  chnrch, 
St.  Paol  shonld  lay  special  stress  on  all  those  with  whom  he  was  acgnainted  01 


XdV  EPISTLE   TO  THE   ROMANS  [§  9 

of  whom  he  had  heard,  in  order  that  he  might  thns  commend  himself  to  them. 
Again,  when  we  come  to  examine  the  names,  we  find  that  those  actually  con- 
nected with  Ephesns  are  only  three,  and  of  these  persons  two  are  known  to 
have  originally  come  from  Rome,  wMle  the  third  alone  can  hardly  be  con- 
•idered  sufficient  support  for  this  theory.  When  again  we  come  to  examine 
the  warning  against  heretics,  we  find  thnt  after  all  it  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  body  of  the  Epistle.  If  we  conceive  it  to  be  a  warning  against  false 
teachers  whom  St.  Paul  fears  may  come  but  who  have  not  yet  done  so,  it 
exactly  suits  the  situation,  and  helps  to  explain  the  motives  he  had  in  writing 
the  Epistle.  He  definitely  states  that  he  is  only  warning  them  that  they  may 
be  wise  if  occasion  arise. 

The  arguments  against  these  verses  are  not  strong.  What  is  the  valae  of 
ttie  definite  evidence  in  their  favour?  This  is  of  two  classes.  (i)  The 
archaeological  evidence  for  connecting  the  names  in  the  Epistle  with  Rome, 
(ii)  The  archaeological  and  literary  evidence  for  connecting  any  of  the  persons 
mentioned  here  with  the  Roman  Church. 

(i)  In  his  commentary  on  the  Philippians,  starting  from  the  text  Phil.  It.  aa 
Affira^ovTai  {)fiidi  .  .  .  fiaKiara  ol  in  tov  Kaiffapos  oltcia^,  Bp.  Lightfoot  proceeds 
to  examine  the  list  of  names  in  Rom.  xvi  in  the  light  of  Roman  inscriptions. 
We  happen  to  have  preserved  to  us  almost  completely  the  funereal  inscriptions 
of  certain  columbaria  in  which  were  deposited  the  ashes  of  members  of  the 
imperial  household.  Some  of  these  date  a  little  earlier  than  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  some  of  them  are  almost  contemporary.  Besides  these  we  have 
a  large  number  of  inscriptions  containing  names  of  freedmen  and  others  belong- 
ing to  the  imperial  household.  Now  examples  of  almost  every  name  in  Rom. 
Kvi.  3-16  may  be  found  amongst  these,  and  the  publication  of  the  sixth 
volume  of  the  Corpus  of  Latin  Inscriptions  has  enabled  us  to  add  to  the 
instances  quoted.  Practically  every  name  may  be  illustrated  in  Rome,  and 
almost  every  name  in  the  Inscriptions  of  the  household,  although  some  of  them 
are  uocoriamon. 

Now  what  does  this  prove?  It  does  not  prove  of  coarse  that  these  are 
the  persoEiS  to  whom  the  Epistle  was  written ;  nor  does  it  give  overwhelming 
evidence  that  the  names  are  Roman.  It  shows  that  such  a  combination  of 
names  was  possible  in  Rome  :  but  it  shows  something  more  than  this.  Man. 
gold  asks  what  is  the  value  of  this  investigation  as  the  same  names  are  found 
outside  Rome?  The  answer  is  that  for  the  most  part  they  are  very  rare. 
LipsittS  makes  various  attempts  to  illustrate  the  names  from  Asiatic  inscrip- 
tions, but  not  very  successfully ;  nor  does  Mangold  help  by  showing  that  the 
two  common  names  Narcissus  and  Hermas  may  be  paralleled  elsewhere.  We 
have  attempted  to  institute  some  comparison,  but  it  is  not  very  easy  and  will 
Bot  be  until  we  have  more  satisfactory  collections  of  Greek  inscriptions.  If 
we  take  the  Greek  Corpus  we  shall  find  that  in  the  inscriptions  of  Ephesns 
only  three  names  out  of  the  twenty-four  in  this  list  occur ;  if  we  extend  our 
survey  to  the  province  of  Asia  we  shall  find  only  twelve.  Now  what  this 
comparison  suggests  is  that  such  a  combination  of  names — Greek,  Jewish,  and 
Latin — could  as  a  matter  of  fact  only  be  found  in  the  mixed  population  which 
forTued  the  lower  and  middle  classes  of  Rome.  This  evidence  is  not  con- 
clu»ive,  but  it  shows  that  there  is  no  a  priori  improbability  in  the  names  being 
Roman,  and  that  it  would  be  diificulc  anywhere  eUe  to  illustrate  such  an 
heterogeneous  collection. 

To  this  we  may  add  the  further  evidence  afforded  by  the  explanation  given 
hj  Bishop  Lightfoot  and  repeated  in  the  notes,  of  the  households  of  Narcissus 
and  Aristobulns  :  evidence  again  only  corroborative  but  yet  of  some  weight. 

(ii)  The  more  direct  archaeological  evidence  is  that  for  connecting  the  names 
of  rrisca,  Amplias,  Nercus,  and  Apelles  definitely  with  the  early  history  of 
Roman  Christianity.  These  points  have  been  discussed  sufficiently  in  the 
notes,  and  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  here  that  it  would  be  an  excess  o' 


«•] 


INTEGRITY  XCV 


■eepticinn  to  look  npon  Rich  eridence  »■  worthless,  although  it  might  not 
weigh  much  if  there  were  strong  evidence  on  the  other  side. 

To  sum  np  then.  There  is  no  external  evidence  against  this  section,  nor 
does  the  exclusion  of  it  from  the  Roman  letter  help  in  any  way  to  solve  the 
problems  presented  by  the  text.  The  arguments  against  the  Roman  des- 
tination are  purely  a /n'on".  They  can  therefore  have  little  value.  On  being 
examined  they  were  found  not  to  be  valid  ;  while  evidence  not  conclusive  but 
considerable  has  been  brought  forward  in  favour  of  the  Roman  destination. 
For  these  reasons  we  have  used  the  sixteenth  chapter  without  hesitation  in 
writing  an  account  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  any  success  we  have  had  in  the 
drawing  of  the  picture  which  we  have  been  able  to  present  must  be  allowed  to 
weigh  in  the  evidence. 

4.  Reiche  (in  1833)  suggested  that  the  doxology  was  not  genuine,  and  his 
opinion  has  been  largely  followed,  combined  in  some  cases  with  theories  as  to 
the  omission  of  other  parts,  in  some  cases  not.  It  is  well  known  that  passages 
which  did  not  originally  form  part  of  the  text  are  inserted  in  different  places  in 
different  texts;  for  instance,  the  fericope  adulierae  is  found  in  more  than  one 
place.  It  would  still  be  difficult  to  find  a  reason  for  the  insertion  of  the 
doxology  in  the  particular  place  at  the  end  of  chap,  xiv,  but  at  the  same  time 
the  theory  that  it  is  not  genuine  will  account  for  its  omission  altogether  in 
some  MSS.  and  its  insertion  in  different  places  in  others.  We  ask  then  what 
farther  evidence  there  is  for  this  omission,  and  are  confronted  with  a  large 
namber  of  arguments  which  inform  ns  that  it  is  clearly  unpanline  because  it 
harmonizes  in  style,  in  phraseology,  and  in  subject-matter  with  non-pauline 
Epistles — that  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  Pastoral  Epistles.  This  argument 
most  tell  in  different  ways  to  different  critics.  It  will  be  very  strong,  if  not 
conclusive,  to  those  who  consider  that  these  Epistles  are  not  Pauline.  To 
those  however  who  accept  them  as  genuine  these  arguments  will  rather  con- 
firm their  belief  in  the  Pauline  authorship. 

5.  But  there  is  an  alternative  hypothesis  which  may  demand  more  careful 
consideration  from  us,  that  although  it  comes  from  St.  Paul  it  belongs  to  rather 
a  later  period  in  his  life.  It  is  this  consideration  amongst  others  which  forms 
the  basis  of  the  theory  put  forward  by  Dr.  Lightfoot.  He  considers  that  the 
original  Epistle  to  the  Romans  written  by  St.  Paul  contained  all  our  present 
Epistle  except  xvL  25-27 ;  that  at  a  somewhat  later  period — the  peiiod  per- 
haps of  his  Roman  imprisonment,  St.  Paul  turned  this  into  a  circular  letter ; 
he  cut  off  the  last  two  chapters  which  contained  for  the  most  part  purely 
personal  matter,  he  omitted  the  words  if  'Fufiy  in  i.  7  and  15 ;  and  then  added 
the  doxology  at  the  end  because  he  felt  the  need  of  some  more  fitting  con- 
clusion. Then,  at  a  later  date,  in  order  to  make  the  original  Epistle  complete 
the  doxology  was  added  from  the  later  recension  to  the  earlier. 

Dr.  Lightfoot  points  out  that  this  hypothesis  solves  all  the  problems.  It 
explains  the  existence  of  a  shorter  recension,  it  explains  the  presence  of  the 
doxology  in  both  places,  it  explains  the  peculiar  style  of  the  doxology.  We 
may  admit  this,  but  there  is  one  point  it  does  not  explain ;  it  does  not  explain 
how  or  why  St.  Paul  made  the  division  at  the  end  of  chap.  xiv.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  next  thirteen  verses  which  unfits  them  for  general  circulation. 
They  are  in  fact  more  suitable  for  an  encyclical  letter  than  is  chap.  xiv.  It  is 
to  ns  inconceivable  that  St.  Paul  should  have  himself  mutilated  his  own  argu- 
ment by  cutting  off  the  conclusion  of  it.  This  consideration  therefore  seems 
to  us  decisive  against  Dr.  Lightfoot's  theory 

6.  Dr.  Hort  has  subjected  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Lightfoot  to  a  very  close 
examination.  He  begins  by  a  careful  study  of  the  doxology  and  has  shown 
clearly  first  of  all  that  the  parallels  between  it  and  passages  in  the  four  acknow- 
ledged Epistles  are  much  commoner  and  nearer  than  was  thought  to  be  the  case ; 
and  secondly  that  it  exactly  reproduces  and  sums  up  the  whole  argument  of 
the  Epistle.    On  his  investigation  we  have  based  our  commentary,  and  we 


XCVi  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  ft 

■tut  refer  to  that  and  to  Dr.  Hort's  own  essay  for  the  reasons  which  make  w 
Accept  the  doxology  as  not  only  a  genuine  work  of  St.  Paul,  but  also  as  an 
integral  portion  of  the  Epistle.  That  at  the  end  he  should  feel  compelled 
once  more  to  sum  up  the  great  ideas  of  which  the  Epistle  is  full  and  put  them 
clearly  and  strongly  before  his  readers  is  quite  in  accordance  with  the  whole 
vind  of  the  Apostle.  He  does  so  in  fact  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Galatian 
i'etter,  although  not  in  the  form  of  a  doxology. 

Dr.  Hort  then  proceeds  to  criticize  and  explain  away  the  textual  phenomena. 
We  have  quoted  his  emendation  of  the  passage  in  Origen  and  pointed  out  that 
it  is  to  as  most  nnconvincing.  No  single  argument  in  favour  of  the  existence 
of  the  shorter  recension  may  be  strong,  but  the  combination  of  reasons  is 
in  our  opinion  too  weighty  to  be  explained  away. 

Dr.  Hort's  own  conclusions  are:  (i)  He  suggests  that  at  the  last  two 
chapters  were  considered  unsuitable  for  public  reading,  they  might  be  omitted  in 
systems  of  lectionaries  while  the  doxology — which  was  felt  to  be  edifying — was 
appended  to  chap,  xiv,  that  it  might  be  read,  (a)  Some  such  theory  as  this 
might  explain  the  capitulations.  '  The  analogy  of  the  common  Greek  capita- 
lations  shows  how  easily  the  personal  or  local  and  as  it  were  temporary  portions 
of  an  epistle  might  be  excluded  from  a  schedule  of  chapters  or  paragraphs.' 
(3)  The  omission  of  the  allusions  to  Rome  is  due  to  a  simple  transcriptional 
accident.  (4)  '  When  all  is  said,  two  facts  have  to  be  explained,  the  insertion 
of  the  Doxology  after  xIt  and  its  omission.'  This  latter  is  due  to  Marcion, 
which  mast  be  explained  to  mean  an  omission  agreeing  with  the  reading  in 
Marcion 's  copy.  '  On  the  whole  it  is  morally  certain  that  the  omission  is 
his  only  as  having  been  transmitted  by  him,  in  other  words  that  it  is  a  genuine 
ancient  reading.'  Dr.  Hort  finally  conclades  that  though  a  genuine  reading  it 
is  incorrect  and  perhaps  arises  through  some  accident  sach  as  the  tearing  off 
of  the  end  of  a  papyrus  roll  or  the  last  sheet  in  a  book. 

While  admitting  the  force  of  some  of  Hort's  criticisms  on  Lightfoot,  and 
especially  his  defence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  doxology,  we  must  express 
onr  belief  that  his  manner  of  dealing  with  the  evidence  is  somewhat  arbitrary, 
and  that  his  theory  does  not  satisfactorily  explain  all  the  facts. 

7.  We  ourselves  incline  to  an  opinion  suggested  first  wc  beliere  by 
Dr.  GifFord. 

As  will  have  already  become  apparent,  no  solution  among  those  offered  has 
attempted  to  explain  what  is  really  the  most  difficult  part  of  the  problem, 
the  place  at  which  the  division  was  made.  We  know  that  the  doxology 
was  in  many  copies  inserted  at  the  end  of  chap,  xiv ;  we  have  strong  grounds 
for  believing  that  in  some  editions  chaps,  xv  and  xvi  were  omitted  ;  why  is  it 
at  this  place,  certainly  not  a  suitable  one,  that  the  break  occurs?  As  we  have 
seen,  a  careful  examination  of  the  text  shows  that  the  first  thirteen  verses  oi 
chap.  XV  are  linked  closely  with  chap,  xiv — so  closely  that  it  is  impossible  to 
believe  that  they  are  not  genuine,  or  that  the  Apostle  himself  could  have  cut 
them  oflf  from  the  context  in  publishing  a  shorter  edition  of  his  Epistle  in- 
tended for  a  wide  circulation.  Nor  again  is  it  probable  that  any  one  arranging 
the  Epistle  for  church  services  would  have  made  the  division  at  this  place. 
The  difficulty  of  the  question  is  of  course  obscured  for  us  by  the  division 
into  chapters.  To  us  if  we  vnshed  to  cut  off  the  more  personal  part  of  the 
Epistle,  a  rough  and  ready  method  might  suggest  itself  in  the  excision  of  the 
last  two  chapters,  but  we  are  dealing  with  a  time  before  the  present  or 
probably  any  division  into  chapters  existed. 

Now  if  there  were  no  solution  possible,  we  might  possibly  ascribe  this 
division  to  accident ;  but  as  a  mattei  jf  fact  internal  evidence  and  externa* 
testimony  alike  point  to  the  same  cause.  We  have  seen  that  there  is  con- 
■ideiable  testimony  for  the  fact  that  Marcion  excised  the  last  two  chapters,  and 
if  wc  examine  the  beginning  of  chap,  xv  we  shall  find  that  as  far  as  regardi 
IIm  lint  thirteen  venes  hardly  any  other  cooise  was  possible  for  him,  if  tie  held 


§9.] 


INTEGRITY  XCvil 


the  opinions  which  are  ascribed  to  him.  To  begin  with,  five  <tt  these  renes 
contain  quotations  from  the  O.  T. ;  but  further  ver.  8  contains  an  expression 
Kiyoj  ycip  Xpicriv  StnKovov  ■yfyfvfjaOat  irepiroiSji  vwip  d\rj0fias  9(ov,  which  he 
most  certainly  could  not  have  used.  Still  more  is  this  the  case  with  regard  to 
ver.  4,  which  directly  contradicts  the  whole  of  his  special  teaching.  Tht 
words  at  the  end  of  chap,  xiv  might  seem  to  make  a  more  suitable  ending 
than  either  of  the  next  two  verses,  and  at  this  place  the  division  was  drawn. 
The  remainder  of  these  two  chapters  could  be  omitted  simply  because  they 
were  useless  for  the  definite  dogmatic  purpose  Marcion  had  in  view,  and  the 
Doxology  which  he  could  not  quite  like  would  go  with  them. 

If  we  once  assume  this  excision  by  Marcion  it  may  perhaps  explain  the 
phenomena.  Dr.  Hort  has  pointed  out  against  Dr.  Lightfoot's  theory  of 
a  shorter  recension  with  the  doxology  that  all  the  direct  evidence  for  omitting 
the  last  two  chapters  is  also  in  favour  of  omitting  the  Doxology.  '  For  the 
omission  of  xv,  xvi,  the  one  direct  testimony,  if  such  it  be,  is  that  of  Marcion : 
and  yet  the  one  incontrovertible  fact  about  him  is  that  he  omitted  the  Doxology. 
If  G  is  to  be  added  on  the  strength  of  the  blank  space  after  xiv,  yet  again  it 
leaves  out  the  Doxology.'  We  may  add  also  the  capituhitions  of  Codex 
Fuldensis  which  again,  as  Dr.  Hort  points  out,  have  no  trace  of  the  Doxology. 
Our  evidence  therefore  points  to  the  existence  of  a  recension  simply  leaving 
out  the  last  two  chapters. 

Now  it  is  becoming  more  generally  admitted  that  Marcion's  Apostolicon  had 
some — if  not  great— influence  on  variations  in  the  text  of  the  N.  T.  His 
edition  had  considerable  circulation,  especially  at  Rome,  and  therefore 
presumably  in  the  West,  and  it  is  from  the  West  that  our  evidence  mostly 
comes.  When  in  adapting  the  text  for  the  purposes  of  church  use  it  was 
thought  advisable  to  omit  the  last  portions  as  too  personal  and  not  sufficiently 
edifying,  it  was  natural  to  make  the  division  at  a  place  where  in  a  current 
edition  the  break  had  already  been  made.  The  subsequent  steps  would  then 
be  similar  to  those  suggested  by  Dr.  Hort.  It  was  natural  to  add  the 
Doxology  in  order  to  give  a  more  suitable  conclusion,  or  to  preserve  it  for 
public  reading  at  this  place,  and  subsequently  it  dropped  out  at  the  later 
place.  That  is  the  order  suggested  by  the  manuscript  evidence.  All  our  best 
authorities  place  it  at  the  end ;  A  P  Arm. — representing  a  later  but  still 
respectable  text — have  it  in  both  places;  later  authorities  for  the  most  part 
place  it  only  at  xiv.  33. 

It  remains  to  account  for  the  omission  of  any  reference  to  Rome  in  the  first 
chapter  of  G.  This  may  of  course  be  a  mere  idiosyncracy  of  that  MS.,  arising 
either  from  carelessness  of  transcription  {z.  cause  which  we  can  hardly  accept)  or 
from  a  desire  to  make  the  Epistle  more  general  in  its  character.  But  it  does  not 
seem  to  us  at  all  improbable  that  this  omission  may  also  be  due  to  Marcion. 
His  edition  was  made  with  a  strongly  dogmatic  purpose.  Local  and  personal 
allusions  would  have  little  interest  to  him.  The  words  iv  'Fufiy  could  easily  be 
omitted  without  injuring  the  context.  The  opinion  is  perhaps  corroborated 
by  the  character  of  the  MS.  in  which  the  omission  occurs.  Allusion  has  been 
made  (p.  Ixix)  to  two  dissertations  by  Dr.  Corssen  on  the  allied  MSS.  D  F  G. 
In  the  second  of  these,  he  suggests  that  the  archetype  from  which  these  MSS. 
are  derived  (Z)  ended  at  xv.  13.  Even  if  his  argument  were  correct,  it  would 
not  take  away  from  the  force  of  the  other  facts  which  have  been  mentioned. 
We  should  still  have  to  explain  how  it  was  that  the  Doxology  was  inserted 
at  the  end  of  chap,  xiv,  and  the  previous  discussion  would  stand  as  it  is  :  only 
a  new  fact  would  have  to  be  accounted  for.  When,  however,  we  come  to 
examine  Dr.  Corssen's  arguments  they  hardly  seem  to  support  his  con- 
tention. It  may  be  admitted  indeed,  that  the  capitulations  of  the  Codex 
Amiatinus  might  have  been  made  for  a  copy  which  ended  at  xv.  13,  but  they 
present  no  solid  argument  for  the  existence  of  such  a  copy.  Dr.  Corssen 
points  out  that  in  the  section  zr.  14 — xvi.  33,  there  are  a  considerable  numbef 


XCviii  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [§  ti 

of  variaHoni  in  the  text,  and  suggests  that  that  implies  a  different  soDice  foi 
the  text  of  that  portion  of  the  epistle.  The  nnmt^r  of  variations  in  the 
tericope  adulteia*  are.  it  is  well  known,  considerable ;  and  in  the  same  way 
ne  would  aigue  that  this  portion  which  has  all  these  variations  mnst  come  from 
a  separate  source.  Hut  the  facts  do  not  support  hit  conlention.  It  it  tnie 
that  in  forty-three  verses  he  is  able  to  enumerate  twenty-four  variations;  bnt  if 
we  examine  the  twenty-three  verses  of  chap,  xiv  we  shall  find  fourteen 
variations,  a  still  larger  proportion.  Moreover,  in  xiv.  13  there  are  as  numerous 
and  as  important  variations  as  in  any  of  the  following  verses.  Dr.  Corssen'« 
arguments  do  not  bear  out  his  conclusion.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  as  Dr.  Hort 
pointed  out  against  Dr.  Lightfoot,  the  text  of  D  F  G  presents  exactly  the  same 
phenomena  throughout  the  Epistle,  and  that  suggests,  although  it  does  not 
perhaps  prove,  that  the  archetype  contained  the  last  two  chapters.  The  scribe 
however  was  probably  acquainted  with  a  copy  which  omitted  them.  This 
archetype  is  alone  or  almost  alone  amongst  our  sources  for  the  text  in 
omitting  the  Doxology.  It  also  omits  as  we  have  seen  kv  'Pu/^p  in  both  places. 
We  would  hazard  the  suggestion  that  all  these  variations  were  due  directly  or 
indirectly  to  the  same  cause,  the  text  of  Marcion. 

In  our  opinion  then  the  text  as  we  have  it  represents  substantially  the  Epistle 
that  St  Paul  wrote  to  the  Romans,  and  it  remains  only  to  explain  briefly  the 
somewhat  complicated  ending.  At  xv.  13  the  didactic  portion  of  it  is  con- 
cluded, and  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  is  devoted  to  the  Apostle's  personal 
relations  with  the  Roman  Church,  and  a  sketch  of  his  plans.  This  paragraph 
ends  with  a  short  prayer  called  forth  by  the  mingled  hopes  and  fears  which  these 
plans  for  the  future  suggest.  Then  comes  the  commendation  of  Phoebe,  the 
bearer  of  the  letter  (xvi.  1,2);  then  salutations  (3-16).  The  Apostle  might 
now  close  the  Epistle,  bnt  his  sense  of  the  danger  to  which  the  Roman  Church 
may  be  exposed,  if  it  is  visited  by  false  teachers,  such  as  he  is  acquainted  with 
in  the  East,  leads  him  to  give  a  final  and  direct  warning  against  them.  We 
find  a  not  dissimilar  phenomenon  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  There  in 
iii.  1  he  appears  to  be  concluding,  but  before  he  concludes  he  breaks  out  into 
a  strong,  even  indignant  warning  against  false  teachers  (iii.  2-21),  and  even 
after  that  dwells  long  and  feelingly  over  his  salutations.  The  same  difiicnlty 
of  ending  need  not  therefore  surprise  us  when  we  meet  it  in  the  Romans. 
Then  comes  (xvi.  20)  the  concluding  benediction.  After  this  a  postscript  with 
salutations  from  the  companions  of  St  Paul.  Then  finally  the  Apostle,  wish- 
ing perhaps,  as  Dr.  Hort  suggests,  to  raise  the  Epistle  once  more  to  the  serene 
tone  which  has  characterized  it  throughout,  adds  the  concluding  Doxology, 
summing  up  the  whole  argument  of  the  Epistle.  There  is  surely  nothing 
unreasonable  in  supposing  that  there  would  be  an  absence  of  complete  same- 
ness in  the  construction  of  the  different  letters.  It  is  not  likely  that  all  would 
exactly  correspond  to  the  same  model.  The  form  in  each  case  would  be 
altered  and  changed  in  accordance  with  the  feelings  of  the  Apostle,  and  there 
is  abundant  proof  throughout  the  Epistle  that  the  Apostle  felt  earnestly  the 
need  of  preserving  the  Roman  Chorch  from  th*  evils  of  disunion  and  false 
teaching. 


"^  10.  Commentaries. 

A  very  complete  and  careful  bibliography  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  was  added  by  the  editor,  Dr.  W.  P.  Dickson,  to  the 
English  translation  of  Meyer's  Commentary.  This  need  not  be 
repeated  here  But  a  few  leading  works  may  be  mentioned, 
especially  such  as  have  been  most  largely  used  in  the  preparation 


^10.]  COMMENTARIES  xcix 

of  this  edition.  One  or  two  which  have  not  been  used  are  added 
as  links  in  the  historical  chain.  Some  conception  may  be  formed 
of  the  general  characteristics  of  the  older  commentators  from  the 
sketch  which  is  given  of  their  treatment  of  particular  subjects ;  e.g. 
of  the  doctrine  of  diKaiaais  at  p.  147  if.,  and  of  the  interpretation  of 
ch.  ix.  6—29  on  p.  269  fF.  The  arrangement  is,  roughly  speaking, 
chronological,  but  modern  writers  are  grouped  rather  according  to 
their  real  affinities  than  according  to  dates  of  publication  which 
would  be  sometimes  misleading. 

I.  Greek  Writers. 

Okioek  (Orig.);  ob.  353:  Comment,  in  Epist.  S.  Fault  ad 
Romanes  in  Origenit  Opera  ed.  C.  H.  E.  Lommatzsch,  vols,  vi,  vii : 
Berolini,  1836,  1837.  The  standard  edition,  on  which  that  of 
Lommatzsch  is  based,  is  that  begun  by  Charles  Delarue,  Bene- 
dictine of  the  congregation  of  St.  Maur  in  1733,  and  completed  after 
his  death  by  his  nephew  Charles  Vincent  Delarue  in  1759-  The 
Commentary  on  Romans  comes  in  Tom.  iv,  which  appeared  in 
the  latter  year.  A  new  edition — for  which  the  beginnings  have 
been  made,  in  Germany  by  Dr.  P.  Koetschau,  and  in  England  by 
Prof.  Armitage  Robinson  and  others — is  however  much  needed. 

The  Commentary  on  our  Episde  belongs  to  the  latter  part  of 
Origen's  life  when  he  was  settled  at  Caesarea.  A  few  fragments  of 
the  original  Greek  have  come  down  to  us  in  the  Philocalia  (ed. 
Robinson,  Cambridge,  1893),  and  in  Cramer's  Catena,  Tom.  iv. 
(Oxon.  1844);  but  for  the  greater  part  we  are  dependent  upon  the 
condensed  translation  of  Rufinus  (iience  '  Orig.-lat.').  There  is  no 
doubt  that  Rufinus  treated  the  work  before  him  with  great  freedom. 
Its  text  in  particular  is  frequently  adapted  to  that  of  the  Old-Latin 
copy  of  the  Epistles  which  he  was  in  the  habit  of  using  ;  so  that 
'Orig.-lat.'  more  often  represents  Rufinus  than  Origen.  An  ad- 
mirable account  of  the  Commentary,  so  far  as  can  be  ascertained, 
in  both  its  forms  is  given  in  Dr.  Westcott's  article  (Jrigenes  in 
Diet  Chr.  Biog.  iv.  11 5-1 18. 

This  work  of  Origen's  is  unique  among  commentaries.  The 
reader  is  astonished  not  only  at  the  command  of  Scripture  but  at 
the  range  and  subtlety  of  thought  which  it  displays.  The  questions 
raised  are  often  remarkably  modern.  If  he  had  been  as  successful 
in  answering  as  he  is  in  propounding  them  Origen  would  have  left 
litde  for  those  who  followed  him.  As  it  is  he  is  hampered  by 
defects  of  method  and  especially  by  the  fatal  facility  of  allegory; 
the  discursiveness  and  prolixity  of  treatment  are  also  deterrent  to 
the  average  reader. 

Chrysostom  (Chrys.) ;  ob.  407 :  Homil.  in  Epist.  ad  Romanos, 
ed.  Field  :  Oxon.  1849;  a  complete  cridcal  edition.     A  translation 


C  EPISTLE  TO  THB  ROMANS  [^  10. 

(not  of  this  but  of  Savile's  text  which  is  superior  to  Montfaucon's), 
by  the  Rev.  J.  B.  Morris,  was  given  in  the  Library  of  the  Fathers, 
vol.  vii:  Oiford,  1841.  The  Homilies  were  delivered  at  Antioch 
probably  between  387-397  a. d.  They  show  the  preacher  at  his 
best  and  are  full  of  moral  enthusiasm  and  of  sympathetic  human 
insight  into  the  personality  of  the  Apostle ;  they  are  also  the  work 
of  an  accomplished  scholar  and  orator,  but  do  not  always  sound  the 
depths  of  the  great  problems  with  which  the  Apostle  is  wrestling. 
They  have  at  once  the  merits  and  the  limitations  of  Antiochene 
exegesis. 

Theodoret  (Theodrt.,  Thdrt.)  played  a  well-known  moderating 
part  in  the  controversies  of  the  fifth  century.  He  died  in  458  a.  d. 
As  a  commentator  he  is  a  pedisequus — but  one  of  the  best  of  the 
TOAny  pedtsequt — of  St.  Chrysostom.  His  Commentary  on  the  Ep. 
to  the  Romans  is  contained  in  his  Works,  ed.  Sirmond :  Paris, 
1643,  Tom.  iii.  1-119;  also  ed.  Schulze  and  Noesselt,  Halle, 
1769-1774. 

Joannes  Damascenus  (Jo.-Damasc.) ;  died  before  754  a.  d.  His 
commentary  is  almost  entirely  an  epitome  of  Chrysostom;  it  is 
printed  among  his  works  (ed.  Lequien :  Paris,  17 12,  torn.  ii. 
pp.  1-60).  The  so-called  Sacra  Parallela  published  under  his 
name  are  now  known  to  be  some  two  centuries  earlier  and 
probably  in  great  part  the  work  of  Leontius  of  Byzantium  (see  the 
brilliant  researches  of  Dr.  F.  Loofs  :  Studien  Uher  die  dem  Johannes 
von  Damascus  zugeschriebenen  Paralklen,  Halle,  1892). 

Oecumenius  (Oecum.) ;  bishop  of  Tricca  in  Thessaly  in  the 
tenth  century.  The  Commentary  on  Romans  occupies  pp.  195- 
413  of  his  Works  {tA.  Joan.  Hentenius:  Paris,  1631).  It  is  prac- 
tically a  Catena  with  some  contributions  by  Oecumenius  himself; 
it  includes  copious  extracts  from  Photius  (Phot.),  the  eminent 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  {c.  8ao-<".  891) ;  these  are  occasionally 
noted. 

Theophylact  (Theoph.) ;  archbishop  of  Bulgaria  under  Michael 
VII  Ducas(io7i-io78),  and  still  living  in  11 18.  His  Commentary 
is  one  of  the  best  specimens  of  its  kind  {0pp.  ed.  Venet.,  1754- 
1763,  tom.  ii.  1-118). 

EuTHYMius  ZiGABENUS  (Euthym.-Zig.) ;  living  after  11 18;  monk 
in  a  monastery  near  Constantinople  and  in  high  favour  with  the 
emperor  Alexius  Comnenus.  His  Commentaries  on  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  were  not  published  until  1887  (ed.  Calogeras :  Athens) ; 
and  as  for  that  reason  they  have  not  been  utilized  in  previous 
editions  we  have  drawn  upon  them  rather  largely.  They  deserve 
citation  by  their  terseness,  point,  and  general  precision  of  thought, 
but  like  all  the  writers  of  this  date  they  follow  closely  in  the  foot- 
steps of  Chrysostom. 


§  10.]  COMMENTARIES  d 

».  Latin  Writers 

Ambrosiastxs  (Ambrstr.).  The  Episile  to  the  Romass  heads 
a  series  of  Commentaries  on  thirteen  Epistles  of  St,  Paul,  which  in 
some  (though  not  the  oldest)  MSS.  bear  the  name  of  St.  Ambrose, 
and  from  that  circumstance  came  to  be  included  in  the  printed 
editions  of  his  works.  The  Benedictines,  Du  Frische  and  Le 
Nourry  in  1690,  argued  against  their  genuineness,  which  has  been 
defended  with  more  courage  than  success  by  the  latest  editor, 
P.  A.  Ballerini  {S.  Ambrosii  Opera,  torn,  iii,  p.  350  ff. ;  Mediolani, 
1877).  The  real  authorship  of  this  work  is  one  of  the  still  open 
problems  of  literary  criticism.  The  date  and  place  of  composition 
are  fairly  fixed.  It  was  probably  written  at  Rome,  and  (unless 
the  text  is  corrupt)  during  the  Episcopate  of  Damasus  about  the 
year  380  a.  d.  The  author  was  for  some  time  supposed  to  be 
a  certain  Hilary  the  Deacon,  as  a  passage  which  appears  in  the 
commentary  is  referred  by  St.  Augustine  to  sanctus  Hilarim 
{Contra  duas  Epp.  Pelag.  iv.  7).  The  commentary  cannot  really 
proceed  from  the  great  Hilary  (of  Poitiers),  but  however  the  fact  is 
to  be  explained  it  is  probably  he  who  is  meant.  More  recently  an 
elaborate  attempt  has  been  made  by  the  Old-Catholic  scholar, 
Dr.  Langen,  to  vindicate  the  work  for  Faustinus,  a  Roman  pres- 
byter of  the  required  date.  [Dr.  Langen  first  propounded  his 
views  in  an  address  delivered  at  Bonn  in  1880,  but  has  since  given 
the  substance  of  them  in  his  Geschichte  d.  rom.  Kirche,  pp.  599- 
610.]  A  case  of  some  strength  seemed  to  be  made  out,  but  it 
was  replied  to  with  arguments  which  appear  to  preponderate  by 
Marold  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift  for  1883,  pp.  415-470.  Unfor- 
tunately the  result  is  purely  negative,  and  the  commentary  is  stili 
without  an  owner.  It  has  come  out  in  the  course  of  discussion 
that  it  presents  a  considerable  resemblance,  though  not  so  much 
as  to  imply  identity  of  authorship,  with  the  Quaesttones  ex  utroqut 
Testamento,  printed  among  the  works  of  St.  Augustine.  The  com- 
mentator was  a  man  of  intelligence  who  gives  the  best  account  we 
have  from  antiquity  of  the  origin  of  the  Roman  Church  (see  above, 
p.  xxv),  but  it  has  been  used  in  this  edition  more  for  its  interesting 
text  than  for  the  permanent  value  of  its  exegesis. 

Pelagius  (Pelag.).  In  the  Appendix  to  the  works  of  St.  Jerome 
(ed.  Migne  xi.  [P.  L.  xxx.],  col.  659  fF.)  there  is  a  series  of  Com- 
mentaries on  St.  Paul's  Epistles  which  is  now  known  to  proceed 
really  from  the  author  of  Pelagianism.  The  Commentary  was 
probably  written  before  410.  It  consists  of  brief  but  well  written 
scholia  rather  dexterously  turned  so  as  not  to  clash  with  his 
peculiar  views.  But  it  has  not  come  down  to  us  as  Pelagius  left  it. 
Cassiodorius,  and  perhaps  others^  made  excisions  in  the  interests 
»f  '•^'^adoxy. 


eii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  10. 

Hugh  of  St.  Victor  (Hugo  a  S.  Victore,  Hugh  of  Paris); 
c.  1097-1141.  Amongst  the  works  of  the  great  mystic  of  the 
twelfth  century  are  published  Allegoriae  in  Novum  Testamenium, 
Lib.  VI.  Allegoriae  in  Epistolam  Pauli  ad  Romanos  (Migne, 
P.  L.  clxxv,  col.  879),  and  Quaestiones  et  Decisiones  in  Epistolas 
D.  Pauli.  I.  In  Epistolam  ad  Romanos  (Migne,  clxxv,  col.  431). 
The  authenticity  of  both  these  is  disputed.  St.  Hugh  was  a  typical 
representative  of  the  mystical  as  opposed  to  the  rationaUzing 
tendency  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

Petkr  Abelard,  1079-1142.  Petri  Abaelardi  commentariorum 
super  S.  Pauli  Epistolam  ad  Romanos  libri  quinque  (Migne,  P.  L. 
clxxviii.  col.  783).  The  commentary  is  described  as  being  '  literal, 
theological,  and  moral.  The  author  follows  the  text  exactly, 
explains  each  phrase,  often  each  part  of  a  phrase  separately,  and 
attempts  (not  always  very  successfully)  to  show  the  connexion  of 
thought.  Occasionally  he  discusses  theological  or  moral  questions, 
often  with  great  originality,  often  showing  indications  of  the  opinions 
for  which  he  was  condemned '  (Migne,  op.  cit.  col.  30).  So  far  as 
we  have  consulted  it,  we  have  found  it  based  partly  on  Origen  partly 
on  Augustine,  and  rather  weak  and  indecisive  in  its  character. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  c.  12 25-1 274,  called  Doctor  Angelicus.  His 
Exposiiio  in  Epistolas  omnes  Divi  Pauli  Apostoli  {0pp.  Tom.  xvi. 
Venetiis,  1593)  formed  part  of  the  preparation  which  he  made  for 
his  great  work  the  Summa  Theologiae — a  preparation  which  consisted 
in  the  careful  study  of  the  sentences  of  Peter  Lombard,  the  Scriptures 
with  the  comments  of  the  Fathers,  and  the  works  of  Aristotle.  His 
commentary  works  out  in  great  detail  the  method  of  exegesis  started 
by  St.  Augustine.  No  modern  reader  who  turns  to  it  can  fail  to 
be  struck  by  the  immense  intellectual  power  displayed,  and  by  the 
precision  and  completeness  of  the  logical  analysis.  Its  value  is 
chiefly  as  a  complete  and  methodical  exposition  from  a  definite 
point  of  view.  That  in  attempting  to  fit  every  argument  of 
St.  Paul  into  the  form  of  a  scholastic  syllogism,  and  in  making 
every  thought  harmonize  with  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  grace, 
there  should  be  a  tendency  to  make  St.  Paul's  words  fit  a  precon- 
ceived system  is  not  unnatural. 

3.    Reformation  and  Post-Re/ormation  Period*. 

CoLET,  John  {c.  1467- 1519);   Dean  of  St  Paul's.     Colet,  Ae 

friend  of  Erasmus,  delivered  a  series  of  lectures  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  about  the  year  1497  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 
These  were  published  in  1873  with  a  translation  by  J.  H.  Lupton, 
M.A.,  Sur-AIaster  of  St.  Paul's  School.  They  are  full  of  interest 
as  an  historical  memorial  of  the  earlier  English  Reformation. 
Erasmus,  Desiderius,  1 466-1 536.     Erasmus'  Greek  Testament 


§  10.]  COMMENTARIES  ciu 

with  a  new  translation  and  annotations  was  published  in  1516; 
his  Paraphrasis  Novi  Tesiamenii,  a  popular  work,  in  152a.  He 
was  greater  always  in  what  he  conceived  and  planned  than  in  the 
manner  in  which  he  accomplished  it.  He  published  the  first 
edition  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  and  the  first  commentary  on 
it  which  made  use  of  the  learning  of  the  Renaissance,  and  edited 
for  the  first  time  many  of  the  early  fathers.  But  in  all  that  he  did 
there  are  great  defects  of  execution,  defects  even  for  his  own  time. 
He  was  more  successful  in  raising  questions  than  in  solving  them  ; 
and  his  commentaries  suffer  as  much  from  timidity  as  did  those  of 
Luther  from  excessive  boldness.  His  aim  was  to  reform  the  Church 
by  publishing  and  interpreting  the  records  of  early  Christianity — an 
aim  which  harmonized  ill  with  the  times  in  which  he  lived.  His 
work  was  rather  to  prepare  the  way  for  future  developments. 

Luther,  Martin,  1 483-1 546.  Luther's  contribution  to  the 
literature  of  the  Romans  was  confined  to  a  short  Preface,  published 
in  1533.  But  as  marking  an  epoch  in  the  study  of  St.  Paul's 
writings,  the  most  important  place  is  occupied  by  his  Commentary 
cm  the  Galatians.  This  was  published  in  a  shorter  form.  In  epist. 
P.  ad  Galatcu  Mart.  Lutheri  comment,  in  15 19;  in  a  longer  form. 
In  epist.  P.  ad  Gal.  commentarius  ex  praelectionibus  Mart.  Luiheri 
collectus,  1535.  Exegesis  was  not  Luther's  strong  point,  and  his 
commentaries  bristle  with  faults.  They  are  defective,  and  prolix ; 
full  of  bitter  controversy  and  one-sided.  The  value  of  his  contribu- 
tion to  the  study  of  St,  Paul's  writings  was  of  a  different  character. 
By  grasping,  if  in  a  one-sided  way,  some  of  St.  Paul's  leading 
ideas,  and  by  insisting  upon  them  with  unwearied  boldness  and 
persistence,  he  produced  conditions  of  religious  life  which  made 
the  comprehension  of  part  of  the  Apostle's  teaching  possible.  His 
exegetical  notes  could  seldom  be  quoted,  but  he  paved  the  way  for 
a  correct  exegesis. 

Melanchthon,  Philip  (1497-1560),  was  the  most  scholarly  of 
the  Reformers.  His  Adnotationes  in  ep.  P.  ad  Rom.  with  a  preface 
by  Luther  was  published  in  1522,  his  Commentarii  in  Ep.  ad  Rom. 
in  1540. 

Calvin,  John  (i 509-1 564).  His  Commentarii  in  omnes  episiolas 
Pauli  Apost.  was  first  published  at  Strassburg  in  1539.  Calvin  was 
by  far  the  greatest  of  the  commentators  of  the  Reformation.  He 
is  clear,  lucid,  honest,  and  straightforward. 

As  the  qnestion  is  an  interest-ng  one,  how  far  Calvin  brought  his  peculiar 
▼lews  ready-made  to  the  study  of  the  Epistle  and  how  far  he  derived  them 
from  it  by  an  uncompronising  exegesis,  we  are  glad  to  place  before  the 
reader  a  statement  by  one  who  is  familiar  with  Calvin's  writings  (Dr.  A.  M. 
Fairbaim,  Principal  of  Mansfield  College).  *  The  first  edition  of  the 
Institutes  was  published  in  1536.  It  has  hardly  any  detailed  exposition  of 
the  higher  Calvinistic  doctrine,  but  is  made  up  of  six  parts :  Exposition! 
(t)  of  tlw  Decalogoe ;  (ii)  of  the  Apostolic  Creed ;  (iii)  of  the  Lord's  Praysr: 


dv  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [§  10. 

(iv)  of  the  Sacrament! ;  (▼)  of  the  Roman  or  false  doctrine  of  Sacraments ; 
and  (vi)  of  Christian  Liberty  or  Church  Polity.  There  is  jast  a  single  para- 
graph on  Election.  In  1 539  he  published  two  things,  the  Commentary  on 
Romans  and  the  2nd  edition  of  the  Institutes.  And  the  latter  are  greatly 
expanded  with  all  his  distinctive  doctrines  fully  developed.  Two  things  are, 
I  think,  certain:  this  development  was  due  to  his  study  (i)  of  Augustine, 
especially  the  Anti-Pelagian  writings,  and  (a)  of  St.  Paul.  But  it  was  St. 
Paul  read  through  Augustine.  The  exegetical  stamp  is  peculiarly  distinct 
in  the  doctrinal  parts  of  the  Institutes ;  and  so  I  should  say  that  his  ideas 
were  not  so  much  philosophical  as  theological  and  exegetical  in  their  basis. 
I  ought  to  add  however  as  indicating  his  philosophical  bent  that  his  earliest 
studies — before  he  became  a  divine — were  on  Seneca,  Dt  CUwuntia! 

Beza,  Theodore  (1519-1605).  His  edition  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment with  translation  and  annotations  was  first  published  by 
H.  Stephanus  in  1565,  his  Adnotationa  majores  in  N.  T.  at  Paris 
in  1594. 

Arminius  (Jakob  Harmensen),  1 560-1 609,  Professor  at  Leyden, 
1603.  As  a  typical  example  of  the  opposite  school  of  interpretation 
to  that  of  Calvin  may  be  taken  Aiminius.  His  works  were  com- 
paratively few,  and  he  produced  few  commentaries.  Two  tracts  oi 
his  however  were  devoted  to  explaininp:  Romans  vii  and  ix.  He 
admirably  illustrates  the  statement  of  Hallam  that '  every  one  who 
had  to  defend  a  cause,  found  no  course  so  ready  as  to  explain  the 
Scriptures  consistently  with  his  own  tenets.' 

The  two  principal  Roman  Catholic  commentators  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  were  Estius  and  Cornelius  a  Lapide. 

Cornelius  a  Lapidi  (van  Stein),  ob.  1637,  a  Jesuit,  published 
his  Commentaria  in  omnes  d.  Pauli  eptstolas  at  Antwerp  in  16 14. 

EsTius  (W.  van  Est),  ob.  161 3,  was  Provost  and  Chancellor  of 
Douay.  His  In  omnes  Pauli  et  aliorum  apostolor.  episiolas  com- 
meniar.  was  published  after  his  death  at  Douay  in  1614-1616. 

Grotius  (Huig  van  Groot),  1583-1645.  His  Annoiationet 
in  N.  T.  were  published  at  Paris  in  1644.  This  distinguished 
publicist  and  statesman  had  been  in  his  younger  days  a  pupil  of 
J.  J.  Scaliger  at  Leyden,  and  his  Commentary  on  the  Bible  was 
the  first  attempt  to  apply  to  its  elucidation  the  more  exact  philo- 
logical methods  which  he  had  learnt  from  his  master.  He  had 
hardly  the  philological  ability  for  the  task  he  had  undertaken,  and 
although  of  great  personal  piety  was  too  much  destitute  of  dogmatic 
interest. 

The  work  of  the  philologists  and  scholars  of  the  sixteenth  and  the 
first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  on  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
was  summed  up  in  Critici  Sacri,  first  published  in  1660.  L 
contains  extracts  from  the  leading  scholars  from  Valla  and  Erasmus 
to  Grotius,  and  represents  the  point  which  philological  study  in  the 
N.  T.  had  up  to  that  time  attained. 

Two  English  commentators  belonging  to  the  seventeenth  century 
deserve  notice. 


§  10.]  COMMENTARIES  CV 

Hammons,  Henry  (1605-1660),  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church.  Hammond  was  well  known 
as  a  royalist.  He  assisted  in  the  production  of  Walton's  Polyglott. 
His  Paraphrase  and  Annotations  of  the  New  Testament  appeared  in 
1653,  a  few  years  before  his  death,  at  a  time  when  the  disturbances 
of  the  Civil  War  compelled  him  to  live  in  retirement  He  has 
been  styled  the  father  of  English  commentators,  and  certainly  no 
considerable  exegetical  work  before  his  time  had  appeared  in  this 
country.  But  he  has  a  further  title  to  fame.  His  commentary 
undoubtedly  deserves  the  title  of  *  historical.'  In  his  interpretation 
he  has  detached  himself  from  the  dogmatic  struggles  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  and  throughout  he  attempts  to  expound  the  Apostle 
in  accordance  with  his  own  ideas  and  those  of  the  times  when  he 
lived. 

Locks,  John  (1668-1704),  the  well-known  philosopher,  devoted 
his  last  years  to  the  study  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  in  1 705-1 707 
were  published  A  Paraphrase  and  Notes  to  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul 
to  the  Galatians,  the  first  and  second  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Ephesians.  Appended  is  an  Essay 
for  the  understanding  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  by  consulting  St.  Paul 
himself.  A  study  of  this  essay  is  of  great  interest.  It  is  full  of 
acute  ideas  and  thoughts,  and  would  amply  vindicate  the  claim  of 
the  author  to  be  classed  as  an  '  historical '  interpreter.  The  com- 
mentaries were  translated  into  German,  and  must  have  had  some 
influence  on  the  future  development  of  Biblical  Exegesis. 

Bengel,  J.  A.  (Beng.),  1687-1752;  a  Lutheran  prelate  in 
Wiirtemberg.  His  Gnomon  Novi  Testamenti  (1742)  stands  out 
among  the  exegetical  literature  not  only  of  the  eighteenth  century 
but  of  all  centuries  for  its  masterly  terseness  and  precision  and 
for  its  combination  of  spiritual  insight  with  the  best  scholarship  of 
his  time. 

Wetstein  (or  Wettstein),  J.  J.,  1693-1754;  after  being  deposed 
from  office  at  Basel  on  a  charge  of  heterodoxy  he  became  Pro- 
fessor in  the  Remonstrants'  College  at  Amsterdam.  His  Greek 
Testament  appeared  1751, 1752.  Wetstein  was  one  of  those  inde- 
fatigable students  whose  first-hand  researches  form  the  base  of 
other  men's  labours.  In  the  history  of  textual  criticism  he  deserves 
to  be  named  by  the  side  of  John  IVIill  and  Richard  Bentley ;  and 
besides  his  collation  of  MSS.  he  collected  a  mass  of  illustrative 
matter  on  the  N.  T.  from  classical,  patristic,  and  rabbinical  sources 
which  is  still  of  great  value. 

4.  Modern  Period, 

Tholuck,  F.  a.  G.,  1799-1877  ;  Professor  at  Halle.  Tholuck 
was  a  man  of  large  sympathies  and  strong  religious  character,  and 


CVf  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  10. 

both  personally  and  through  his  commentary  (which  came  out  first 
in  1824  and  lias  been  more  than  once  translated)  exercised  a  wide 
nfluence  outside  Germany ;  this  is  specially  marked  in  the  American 
xegetes. 

Fritzsche,  C.  F.  a.  (Fri.),  1 801-1846,  Professor  at  Giessen. 
Fritzsche  on  Romans  (3  vols.  1 836-1 843),  like  Lttcke  on  St.  John 
md  Blcek  on  Hebrews,  is  a  vast  quarry  of  materials  to  which  all 
subsequent  editors  have  been  greatly  indebted.  Fritzsche  was  one 
of  those  philologists  whose  researches  did  most  to  fix  the  laws  of 
N.  T.  Greek,  but  his  exegesis  is  hard  and  rationalizing.  He 
engaged  in  a  controversy  with  Tholuck  the  asperity  of  which  he 
regretted  before  his  death.  He  was  however  no  doubt  the  better 
scholar  and  stimulated  Tholuck  to  self-improvement  in  this  respect 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W.  (Mey.),  1800-1873;  Consistorialrath  in  the 
kingdom  of  Hanover.  Meyer's  famous  commentaries  first  began 
to  appear  in  1832,  and  were  carried  on  with  unresting  energy  in  a 
succession  of  new  and  constantly  enlarged  editions  until  his  death. 
There  is  an  excellent  English  translation  of  the  Commentary  on 
Romans  published  by  Messrs.  T.  and  T,  Clark  under  the  editor- 
ship of  Dr.  W.  P.  Dickson  in  1873,  1874.  Meyer  and  De  Wette 
may  be  said  to  have  been  the  founders  of  the  modem  style  of 
commenting,  at  once  scientific  and  popular :  scientific,  through  its 
rigorous — at  times  too  rigorous — application  of  grammatical  and 
philological  laws,  and  popular  by  reason  of  its  terseness  and  power 
of  presenting  the  sifted  results  of  learning  and  research.  Since 
Meyer's  death  the  Commentary  on  Romans  has  been  edited  with 
equal  conscientiousness  and  thoroughness  by  Dr.  Bernhard  Weiss, 
Professor  at  Berlin  (hence  '  Mey.-W.').  Dr.  Weiss  has  not  all  his 
predecessor's  vigour  of  style  and  is  rather  difficult  to  follow,  but 
especially  in  textual  criticism  marks  a  real  advance. 

De  Wette,  W.  M.  L.  (De  W.),  1 780-1849;  Professor  for  a  short 
time  at  Berlin,  whence  he  was  dismissed,  afterwards  at  Basel.  His 
Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum  Neuen  Testament  first 
appeared  in  1 836-1848.  De  Wette  was  an  ardent  lover  of  freedom 
and  rationalistically  inclined,  but  his  commentaries  are  models  of 
brevity  and  precision. 

Stuart,  Moses,  1780-1852;  Professor  at  Andover,  Mass.  Comm. 
on  Romans  first  published  in  1832  (British  edition  with  preface  by 
Dr.  Pye-Smith  in  1833).  At  a  time  when  Biblical  exegesis  was 
not  being  very  actively  prosecuted  in  Great  Britain  two  works  ol 
solid  merit  were  produced  in  America.  One  of  these  was  by 
Moses  Stuart,  who  did  much  to  naturalize  German  methods.  He 
expresses  large  obligations  to  Tholuck,  but  is  independent  as 
a  commentator  and  modified  considerately  the  Calvinism  of  his 
surroundings. 

HooGS,  Dr.  C,  1 797- 1 878;  Professor  at  Princeton,  New  Jersey 


§  10.]  COMMENTARIES  CVIl 

His  Comm.  on  Romans  first  published  in  «83S,  rewritten  in  1864, 
18  a  weighty  and  learned  doctrinal  exposition  based  on  the  principles 
of  the  Westminster  Confession.  Like  Moses  Stuart,  Dr.  Hodge 
also  owed  much  of  his  philological  equipment  to  Germany  where 
he  had  studied. 

Alford,  Dr.  H.  (Alf.),  1810-1871 ;  Dean  of  Canterbury.  His 
Greek  7'estament  (1849-1861,  and  subsequently)  was  the  first  to 
import  the  results  of  German  exegesis  into  many  circles  in  England. 
Nonconformists  (headed  by  the  learned  Dr.  J.  Pye- Smith)  had  been 
in  advance  of  the  Established  Church  in  this  respect.  Dean  Alford's 
laborious  work  is  characterized  by  vigour,  good  sense,  and  scholar- 
ship, sound  as  far  as  it  goes ;  it  is  probably  still  the  best  complete 
Greek  Testament  by  a  single  hand. 

Wordsworth,  Dr.  Christopher,  1809-1885;  Bishop  of  Lincoln. 
Bishop  Wordsworth's  Greek  Testament  (i  856-1 860,  and  subse- 
quently) is  of  an  older  type  than  Dean  Alford's,  and  chiefly  valuable 
for  its  patristic  learning.  The  author  was  not  only  a  distinguished 
prelate  but  a  literary  scholar  of  a  higli  order  (as  may  be  seen  by 
his  Athens  and  Attica,  Conjectural  Emendations  of  Ancient  Authors, 
and  many  other  publications)  but  he  wrote  at  a  time  when  the 
reading  public  was  less  exigent  in  matters  of  higher  criticism  and 
interpretation. 

JowKTT,  B.,  1817-1893;  widely  known  as  Master  of  Balliol 
College  and  Regius  Professor  of  Greek  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 
His  edition  of  -5"/.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  Galatians, 
and  Romans  first  appeared  in  1855;  second  edition  1859;  recently 
re-edited  by  Prof.  L.  Campbell.  Professor  Jowett's  may  be  said  to 
have  been  the  first  attempt  in  England  at  an  entirely  modern  view 
of  the  Epistle.  The  essays  contain  much  beautiful  and  suggestive 
writing,  but  the  exegesis  is  loose  and  disappointing. 

Vaughan,  Dr.  C.  J.  (Va.);  Dean  of  LlandafF.  Dr.  Vaughan's 
edition  first  came  out  in  1859,  ^^^  was  afterwards  enlarged;  the 
edition  used  for  this  commentary  has  been  the  4th  (1874).  It  is 
a  close  study  of  the  Epistle  by  a  finished  scholar  with  little  further 
help  than  the  Concordance  to  the  Septuagint  and  Greek  Testament : 
its  greatest  value  lies  in  the  careful  selection  of  illustrative  passages 
from  these  sources. 

Kelly,  W.  ;  associated  at  one  time  with  the  textual  critic 
Tregelles.  His  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (London,  1873), 
are  written  from  a  detached  and  peculiar  standpoint ;  but  they  are 
the  fruit  of  sound  scholarship  and  of  prolonged  and  devout  studv, 
and  they  deserve  more  attention  than  they  have  received. 

Beet,  Dr.  J.  Agar ;  Tutor  in  the  Wesleyan  College,  Richmond. 
Dr.  Beet's  may  be  described  as  the  leading  Wesleyan  commentary : 
it  starts  from  a  very  careful  exposition  ot  the  text,  but  is  intended 
^roughout  as  a  contribution  to  systematic  theology.     The  first 


Cviii  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [§  la 

edition  appeared  in  1877,  the  second  in  1881,  and  there  have  been 
several  others  since. 

GoDET,  Dr.  F.  (Go.),  Professor  at  Neuchatel.  Commmtairt  im 
VEpttre  aux  Romains,  Paris,  Ac,  1879,  English  translation  in 
T.  and  T.  Clark's  series,  1881.  Godet  and  Oltramare  are  both 
Franco-Swiss  theologians  with  a  German  training ;  and  their  com- 
mentaries are  somewhat  similar  in  character.  They  are  extremely 
full,  giving  and  discussing  divergent  interpretations  under  the  names 
of  their  supporters.  Both  are  learned  and  thoughtful  works, 
strongest  in  exegesis  proper  and  weakest  in  textual  criticism. 

Oltramare,  Hugues  (Oltr.),  1813-1894;  Professor  at  Geneva. 
Commentaire  sur  t EpUre  aux  Romains,  published  in  1881,  1883 
(a  volume  on  chaps,  i-v.  11  had  appeared  in  1843).  Resembling 
Godet  in  many  particulars,  Oltramare  seems  to  us  to  have  the 
stronger  grip  and  greater  individuality  in  exegesis,  though  the 
original  views  of  which  he  is  fond  do  not  always  commend  them- 
selves as  right. 

MouLE,  Rev.  H.  C.  G.  (Mou.);  Principal  of  Ridley  Hall, 
Cambridge.  Mr.  Moule's  edition  (in  the  Cambridge  Bible  for 
Schools)  appeared  in  1879.  It  reminds  us  of  Dr.  Vaughan's  in 
its  elegant  scholarship  and  seeming  independence  of  other  com- 
mentaries, but  it  is  fuller  in  exegesis.  The  point  of  view  approaches 
as  nearly  as  an  English  Churchman  is  likely  to  approach  to  Cal- 
vinism. Mr.  Moule  has  also  commented  on  the  Epistle  in  Tht 
Expositor's  Bible. 

GiFFORD,  Dr.  E.  H.  (Gif.);  sometime  Archdeacon  of  London. 
The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  in  The  Speaker's  Commentary  (1881) 
was  contributed  by  Dr.  Gilford,  but  is  also  published  separately. 
We  believe  that  this  is  on  the  whole  the  best  as  it  is  the  most 
judicious  of  all  English  commentaries  on  the  Epistle.  There  are 
few  diflBculties  of  exegesis  which  it  does  not  fully  face,  and  the 
solution  which  it  offers  is  certain  to  be  at  once  scholarly  and  well 
considered :  it  takes  account  of  previous  work  both  ancient  and 
modern,  though  the  pages  are  not  crowded  with  names  and 
references.  Our  obligations  to  this  commentary  are  probably 
higher  than  to  any  other. 

LiDDON,  Dr.  H.  P.  (Lid.);  Explanatory  Analysis  0/ St.  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  published  posthumously  in  1893,  after  being 
in  an  earlier  form  circulated  privately  among  Dr.  Liddon's  pupils 
during  his  tenure  of  the  Ireland  Chair  (1870-1882).  'Wit  Analysis 
was  first  printed  in  1876,  but  after  that  date  much  enlarged.  It  ii 
what  its  name  implies,  an  analysis  of  the  argument  with  very  full 
notes,  but  not  a  complete  edition.  It  is  perhaps  true  that  the 
analysis  is  somewhat  excessively  divided  and  subdivided;  in 
exegesis  it  is  largely  based  on  Meyer,  but  it  shows  everywhere  the 
hand  of  a  most  lucid  writer  and  accomplished  theologian. 


(  10.]  GOMMENTARIES  clx 

Bakmbt,  Dr.  James;  formerly  Principal  of  Bishop  Hatfield's 
Hall,  Durham.  Dr.  Barmby  contributed  Romans  to  the  Pulpit 
Commentary  (London,  1890) ;  a  sound,  independent  and  vigorous 
exposition. 

Lipsius,  Dr.  R.  A.  (Lips.),  1830-1891;  Professor  at  Jena.  This 
most  unwearied  worker  won  and  maintained  his  fame  in  other 
fields  than  exegesis.  He  had  however  written  a  popular  com- 
mentary on  Romans  for  the  Protestantenbibel  (English  translation, 
published  by  Messrs.  Williams  &  Norgate  in  1883),  and  he  edited 
the  same  Epistle  along  with  Galatians  and  Philippians  in  the 
Handcommentar  zum  Nmen  Testament  (Freiburg  i.  B.,  1891). 
This  is  a  great  improvement  on  the  earlier  work,  and  is  perhaps 
in  many  respects  the  best,  as  it  is  the  latest,  of  German  commen- 
taries; especially  on  the  side  of  historical  criticism  and  Biblical 
theology  it  is  unsurpassed.  No  other  commentary  is  so  different 
from  those  of  our  own  countrymen,  or  would  serve  so  well  to 
supplement  their  deficiencies. 

ScHAEFER,  Dr.  A.;  Professor  at  Mdnster.  Dr.  Schaefer's  Er- 
kldrung  d.  Brief  ex  an  die  Romer  (Mtinster  i.  W.,  1891)  may  be 
taken  as  a  specimen  of  Roman  Catholic  commentaries.  It  is 
pleasantly  and  clearly  written,  with  fair  knowledge  of  exegetical 
literature,  but  seems  to  us  often  just  to  miss  the  point  of  the 
Apostle's  thought  Dr.  Schanz,  the  ablest  of  Roman  Catholic 
commentators,  has  not  treated  St.  Paul's  Epistles. 

We  are  glad  to  have  been  able  to  refer,  through  the  kindness  of 
a  friend,  to  a  Russian  commentary. 

Theophanes,  ob.  1893;  was  Professor  and.  Inspector  in  the 
St.  Petersburgh  Ecclesiastical  Academy  and  afterwards  Bishop  of 
Vladimir  and  Suzdal.  He  early  gave  up  his  see  and  retired  to 
a  life  of  learning  and  devotion.  His  commentary  on  the  Romans 
was  published  in  1890.  He  is  described  as  belonging  to  an 
old  and  to  a  certain  extent  antiquated  school  of  exegesis.  His 
commentary  is  based  mainly  on  that  of  Chrysostom.  Theophanes 
has  both  the  strength  and  weakness  of  his  master.  Like  him  he  is 
dtxa.  historical  in  his  treatment,  like  him  he  sometimes  £uls  to 
Sgnxp  the  more  profound  pdnts  in  the  Apostle's  teaching. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Ecclesiastical  Writers  (see  p.  xcviii  flF.). 

Amb  ,         .         .         .         .  Ambros©. 

Ambrstr Ambrosiastet, 

Ath.     .«•...  Athanasiui. 

Aug Augustine. 

Bas Basil. 

Chrys.  .....  Chrysostom. 

Clem.-Alex.  ....  Clement  of  Alexandrk 

Clem.-Rom.  ....  Clement  of  Rome. 

Cypr Cyprian. 

Cyr.-Alex Cyril  of  Alexandria. 

Cyr.-Jerus Cyril  of  Jerusalem. 

Epiph Epiphanius. 

Eus.    ......  Eusebius. 

Euthym.-Zig Euthymius  Zigabentn. 

HippoL Hippolytus. 

Ign Ignatius. 

Jer.  (Hieron.)       ....  Jerome. 

Jos Josephus. 

Method Meihodiua. 

Novat. Novatian. 

Oecum Oecumeniui. 

Oiig .  Origen. 

Orig.-laL Latin  Version  of  Origea 

Pelag Pelagius. 

Phot PhotiuB. 

Ruf. RufinuB. 

SeduL Sedulius. 

Tert Tertullian. 

Theod.-Mops.       ....  Theodore  of  Mopsnessla 

Theodrt Theodoret 

Theoph Theophylact 


ABBREVIATIONS 

Ftrtioiu  (see  p.  Izvi  t). 

Aegyptt Egyptlaw, 

Boh. Bohairic 

Sah. Sahidic 

Aeth- Ethiopia 

Anr.. Axmeniaflb 

Goth. Gothic. 

Latt Latin. 

Lat  Vet      ....  Vetus  Latia^ 

Vulg. Vulgate. 

Syrr Syriac 

Pegh Peshitta 

Hard.  .        •        .        •        •  Harclean. 

Gov Goverdale. 

GeneT. Geneva. 

Rhem. Rheims  (or  Doimj). 

Tyn Tyndale. 

Wic Wiclif. 

AV Authorized  Venrion. 

RV.    ......  Revised  Version. 

Editors  (see  p.  cv  ff.). 

T.  R. Textus  Receptna. 

Tisck Tischendorf. 

Tref. Tregelles. 

WH. Westcott  and  Hort. 

Alf. Alford 

Beng.  .....  BengeL 

DeL Dehtzsch. 

DeW. DeWette. 

EIL Ellicott. 

Fri Fritzsche  (C  F.  A.> 

Git Gifford. 

Ga     ......  Godet 

Lft. Lightfoot 

lid     .••••.  Liddon. 

Lipa.   ......  Lipsius. 

Mey.    ..,.,,  Meyer. 

Mey.-W Meyer-Weim 

Oltr.    .        .        .         ,        •        .  Oltramare. 

Ya. Vaughan. 


CXU  ABBREVIATIONS 

CJ.O.         •        •        .        ,         .     Corput        InxcripHonum 

Graecarum. 
CJX,.  .         •         ,         ,         .     Corpus        Inscriptionum 

Lattnarum. 
Gnn.-Thay.  ....    Grimm -Thayer's    Ltxi' 

con. 
Trench,  Sy».        ....     Trench  on  Symmymt. 

Win Winer's  Grammar. 

Exp.    ......     Expositor. 

JBExeg.      .....    Journal  of  the  Society  <^ 

Biblical       Literature 

emd  Exegesis. 
Zw7%,         .         .         •         ,         ,     Zeitschrift   fUr     wissen- 

schaftliche  Theol^ie. 

Mdd. addii,  addunt,  Ike. 

«/. alii,  alibi. 

cat.  (eaten.) catena. 

codd.    ......     codices. 

edd,      .,..,.     editcres. 

edd.pr.        .....    editcres    priorea     (older 

editors). 

«m omiitit,  omittunt,  Jfcc. 

pauc pauci. 

pier plerique. 

phtr plures. 

proem,         .....    praemittit,     pnemittimt, 

&c. 

rH. reliqui. 

*/3>  4/6>  ^^        •        •        •        .    twice  out  of  three  times, 

four  out  of  five  times, 

In  text-critical  notes  adverbs  {bis,  temel,  &c.),  statistics  (V„  */i)  and 
cod.  codd.,  ed.  edd.,  &c.,  always  qualify  the  word  which  precedes,  not 
that  which  follows :  '  Vulg.  codd.'  =  some  MSS.  of  the  Vulgate, 
Epiph.  eod.  or  Epiph.  a/.  =  a  MS.  or  some  printed  edition  of 
Epiphanius. 

BT.B. — The  text  eonunented  upon  ia  that  commonly  known  aa  the 
Bevl^ers'  Qreek  Text  (i.  e.  the  Greek  Text  presupposed  in  the  Revised 
Version  of  1881)  published  by  the  Clarendon  Press.  The  few  instanoes 
tal  wiiiob  tb«  editors  dissent  from  this  text  are  noted  as  they  ooour. 


THE 
EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 


THE  AFOSTOIilC  SAIiTTTATION. 

1. 1,  7.  *  Paul,  a  divinely  chosen  and  accredited  Apostle^ 
gives  Christian  greeting  to  the  Roman  Church,  itself  also 
divinely  called. 

'Paul,  a  devoted  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  an  Apostle  called 
by  divine  summons  as  much  as  any  member  of  the  original 
Twelve,  solemnly  set  apart  for  the  work  of  delivering  God's 
message  of  salvation ;  'Paul,  so  authorized  and  commissioned, 
gives  greeting  to  the  whole  body  of  Roman  Christians  (whether 
Jewish  or  Gentile),  who  as  Christians  are  special  objects  of  the 
Divine  love,  called  out  of  the  mass  of  mankind  into  the  inner 
society  of  the  Church,  consecrated  to  God,  like  Israel  of  old,  as 
His  own  peculiar  people.  May  the  free  unmerited  favour  of 
God  and  the  peace  which  comes  from  reconciliation  with  Him  be 
yours  1  May  God  Himself,  the  heavenly  Father,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Messiah,  grant  them  to  you! 

I.  2-6.  I  preach,  in  accordance  with  our  yewish  Scrip- 
tures, Jesus  the  Son  of  David  and  Son  of  God,  whose 
commission  I  bear. 

*The  message  which  I  am  commissioned  to  proclaim  is  no 
startUng  novelty,  launched  upon  the  world  without  preparation, 
but  rather  the  direct  fulfilment  of  promises  which  God  had 
inspired  the  prophets  of  Israel  to  set  down  in  Holy  Writ.  'It 
relates  to  none  other  than  His  Son,  whom  it  presents  in  a  twofold 
aspect ;  on  the  one  hand  by  physical  descent  tracing  His  lineage 

•  In  this  <me  instance  we  h*ve  ventured  to  break  op  the  long  and  heavily- 
weighted  sentence  in  the  Greek,  and  to  treat  its  two  main  divisions  separately. 
But  the  second  of  these  is  not  in  the  strict  sense  a  parenthesis  :  the  constmctioa 
of  the  whole  paragiaph  is  coatinaoas. 


a  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [I.  1-7. 

to  David,  as  the  Messiah  was  to  do,  *and  on  the  other  hand,  in 
virtue  of  the  Holiness  inherent  in  His  spirit,  visibly  designated  or 
declared  to  be  Son  of  God  by  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection.  He, 
I  say,  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  my  message,  Jesus,  the  Jew's 
Messiah,  and  the  Christian's  Lord.  "And  it  was  through  Him  that 
I,  like  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  received  both  the  general  tokens  of 
God's  favour  in  that  I  was  called  to  be  a  Christian  and  also  the 
special  gifts  of  an  Apostle.  'My  duty  as  an  Apostle  is  among 
all  Gentile  peoples,  and  therefore  among  you  too  at  Rome,  to  win 
men  over  to  the  willing  service  of  loyalty  to  Him ;  and  the  end 
to  which  all  my  labom-s  are  directed  is  the  honour  of  His  Holy 
Name. 

1-7.  In  writing  to  the  Church  of  the  imperial  city,  which  he 
had  not  yet  visited,  St.  Paul  delivers  his  credentials  with  some 
solemnity,  and  with  a  full  sense  of  the  magnitude  of  the  issues  in 
which  they  and  he  alike  are  concerned.  He  takes  occasion  at 
once  to  define  (i)  his  own  position,  (ii)  the  position  of  his  readers, 
(iii)  the  central  truth  in  that  common  Christianity  which  unites 
them. 

The  leading  points  in  the  section  may  be  summarized  thus: 
(i)  I,  Paul,  am  an  Apostle  by  no  act  of  my  own,  but  by  the 
deliberate  call  and  in  pursuance  of  the  long-foreseen  plan  of  God 
(vv.  1,7).  (ii)  You,  Roman  Christians,  are  also  special  objects  of 
the  Divine  care.  You  inherit  under  the  New  Dispensation  the 
same  position  which  Israel  occupied  under  the  Old  (w.  6,  7). 
(iii)  The  Gospel  which  I  am  commissioned  to  preach,  though  new 
in  the  sense  that  it  puts  forward  a  new  name,  the  Name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  yet  indissolubly  linked  to  the  older  dispensation  which 
it  fulfils  and  supersedes  (w.  a,  7  ;  see  note  on  K>^rjTols  Ayiois).  (iv) 
Its  subject  is  Jesus,  Who  is  at  once  the  Jewish  Messiah  and  the 
Son  of  God  (w.  3, 4).  (v)  From  Him,  the  Son,  and  from  the  Father, 
may  the  blessedness  of  Christians  descend  upon  you  (ver.  7). 

This  opening  section  of  the  Epistie  affords  a  good  opportunity 
to  watch  the  growth  of  a  Christian  Theology,  in  the  sense  of 
reflection  upon  the  significance  of  the  Life  and  Death  of  Christ 
and  the  relation  of  the  newly  inaugurated  order  of  things  to  the 
old.  We  have  to  remember  (i)  that  the  Epistle  was  written  about 
the  year  58  a.d.,  or  within  thirty  years  of  the  Ascension;  (a)  that 
in  the  interval  the  doctrinal  language  of  Christianity  has  had  to 
be  built  up  from  the  foundations.  We  shall  do  well  to  note  which 
of  the  tei  ms  used  are  old  and  which  new,  and  how  far  old  terms 
have  had  a  new  face  put  upon  them.  We  will  return  to  this  point 
at  the  end  of  the  paragraph. 


I.  L]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  5 

L  touXof  *li)aou  XpioTou  :  iovXos  Btov  or  Kvptov  is  an  Old  Testa- 
ment phrase,  applied  to  the  prophets  in  a  body  from  Amos  onwards 
(Am.  iil  7;  Jer.  vii.  35  and  repeatedly;  Dan.  ix.  6;  Ezra  ix.  11); 
also  with  slight  variations  to  Moses  {dtpdnau  Josh.  i.  2),  Joshua 
(Josh.  xxiv.  29;  Jud.  ii.  8),  David  (title  of  Ps.  xxxvi.  [xxxv.J;  Pss. 
IxxviiL  [IxxviiJ  70;  Ixxxix.  [Ixxxviii.]  4,  21;  also  trais  Kvpiov,  title 
of  Ps.  xviii.  [xvii.]),  Isaiah  \nais  Is.  xx.  3);  but  applied  also  to 
worshippers  generally  (Pss.  xxxiv.  [xxxiii.]  23 ;  cxiii.  [cxii.]  i 
waiSts;  cxxxvi.  [cxxxv.]  aa  of  Israel,  &c.). 

This  is  the  first  instance  of  a  similar  use  in  the  New  Testament ; 
it  is  found  also  in  the  greetings  of  Phil.,  Tit.,  Jas.,  Jude,  2  Pet.,  show- 
ing that  as  the  Apostolic  age  progressed  the  assumption  of  the  title 
became  established  on  a  broad  basis.  But  it  is  noticeable  how 
quietly  St.  Paul  steps  into  the  place  of  the  prophets  and  leaders  of 
the  Old  Covenant,  and  how  quietly  he  substitutes  the  name  of  His 
own  Master  in  a  connexion  hitherto  reserved  for  that  of  Jehovah. 

'ItjctoO  XpicrroO.  A  small  question  of  reading  arises  here,  which  is  per- 
haps of  somewhat  more  importance  than  may  appear  at  first  sight.  In  the 
opening  verses  of  most  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  the  MSS.  vary  between  'lijaov 
Xpiarov  and  XpiffTov  'Irjaov.  There  is  also  evidently  a  certain  method  in  the 
variation.  The  evidence  stands  thus  (where  that  on  one  side  only  is  given 
it  may  be  assumed  that  all  remaining  authorities  are  on  the  other) : — 
I  Thess.  i.  i  'Irjaov  Xpiar^  unquestioned, 
a  Thess.  i.   I  'Irjaov  Xpiar^   Edd. ;    Xpiar^  'Irjaov  D  E  F"  G,  Ambrstr. 

(tu  ed.  Ballerini). 
GaL  i.  I  'Irjffov  "Kptarov  unquestioned. 
I  Cor.  i.  I  XptffTov  'irjaov  BDEFG  17  al.  paut.,  Vulg.  codd.,  Chryi. 

Ambrstr.  Aug.  setnel,  Tisch.,  WH.  marg. 
t  Cor.  i.  I  Xpiarov  'Irjaov  N  BMP  17  marg.,  Hard.,  Euthal.  cod.  Theodrt 

Tisch.  WH.  RV. 
Rom.  i.  I  TLpiarov  'Irjaov  B,  Vulg.  codd.,  Grig,  iis  (contra  Orig.-lat.  bU) 

Aug.  «OT//Amb.  Ambrstr.  al.  Lat.,  Tisch.  WH.  marg, 
Phil.  i.  I  XpiffTov  '\T]aoi  N  B  D  E,  Boh.,  Tisch.  WH.  RV. 
Eph.  i.  I  XpiOTov   'Irjaov   BDEP17,    Vulg.    codd.   Boh,   Goth.    Hard., 

Grig,  (gx  Caten.)  Jo.-Damasc.  Ambrstr.,  Tisch.  WH.  RV. 
Col.  i.  I  XptffTov  'Irjaov  KABFGLP17,  Vulg.  codd.  Boh.  Hard.,  Euthal. 

cod.  Jo.-Damasc.  Ambrstr.  Hieron.  a/..  Tisch.  WH.  RV. 
Philem.  i.  1  Xpiarov  'Irjaov  KAD«FGKP  {de/.  B),  &c.,  Boh.,  Hieron. 

(«/  vid.)  Ambrstr.  a/.,  Tisch.  WH.  RV. 
1  Tim.  i.  I  Xpiarov  'Irjaov  NDFGP  {de/.  B),  Vulg.  codd.    Boh.   Hard., 

Jo  -Damasc.  Ambrstr.,  Tisch.  WH.  RV. 
J  Tim.  i.   I   Xpiarov  'lijaov  NDEFGKP  {de/.  B)  17  a/.,  Vulg.  codd. 
Boh.  Sah.  Hard.,  Euthal.  f^o*/.  Jo.-Damasc.  Ambrstr.  al.,  Tisch.  WH. 
RV. 
Tit.  i.  I  Irjaov  Xpiarov  K  D^  E  F  G  &c.,  Vulg.  codd.  Goth.  Pesh.  Arm. 
Aeth.,  Chrys.  Euthal.  cod.    Ambrstr.    (ed.    Ballerin.")    a/.,   Tisch.  WH. 
(sed  Xpiarov  ['Irjaov']  marg.)  RV. ;  Xpiarov  'hjaov  A  minusc.  tres,  Vulg. 
codd.  Boh.  Hard.,  Cassiod. ;  Xpiarov  tantum  D**. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  Epistles  being  placed  in  a  roughly  chrono- 
logical order,  those  at  the  head  of  the  list  read  indubitably  ^IrjTov  Xpiaroi 
(or  Xpiar^),  while  those  in  the  latter  part  (with  the  single  exception  of  Tit., 
which  is  judiciously  treated  by  WH.)  as  indubitably  read  Xpiarov  'ltta<A 

M  t 


4  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [1.  L 

Jnst  SDoat   the  gronp  i  and  a  Cor.  Rom.  there  is  a  certain  amount  vi 

doubt. 

Remembering  the  Western  element  which  enters  into  B  in  Epp.  Panl.,  it 
looks  as  if  the  evidence  for  xi»  iv  in  Cor.  Rom.  might  be  entirely  Western ; 
but  that  is  not  quite  clear,  and  the  reading  may  possibly  be  right.  In  any 
case  it  would  seem  that  just  about  this  time  St.  Paul  fell  into  the  habit  ol 
writing  Xpicrros  'l??(Toi5j.  The  interest  of  this  would  lie  in  the  fact  that  in 
Xpiaros  Irjaovi  the  first  word  would  seem  to  be  rather  more  distinctly  a 
proper  name  than  in  ^lijaovs  Xpiaru^.  No  doubt  the  latter  phrase  is  rapidly 
passing  into  a  proper  name,  but  XpiarSs  would  seem  to  have  a  little  of  its 
sense  as  a  title  still  clinging  to  it :  the  phrase  would  be  in  fact  transitional 
between  Xoiaroi  or  o  Xpiari,i  of  the  Gospels  and  the  later  Xptards  Irjaovs  or 
Xpi«TT(5y  simply  as  a  proper  name  (see  .Sanday,  Bampton  Lectures,  "o.  389  f., 
and  an  article  by  the  Rev.  F.  Herbert  Stead  in  Expos.  18S8,  i.  386  ff.).  The 
subject  would  repay  working  out  on  a  wider  scale  of  induction. 

kXtjtos  ATr<5oToXos.  itAijffir  is  another  idea  which  has  its  roots  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Eminent  servants  of  God  become  so  by  an 
express  Divine  summons.  The  typical  examples  would  be 
Abraham  iGen.  xii.  1-3),  Moses  (Ex.  iii.  10),  the  prophets  (Isa.  vi. 
8,  9 ;  Jer.  i.  4,  5,  &c.).  The  verb  KoKfiv  occurs  in  a  highly  typical 
passage,  Hos.  Xi.  I  *^  klyv-nroxi  fifTtKoXtaa  ra  TtKva  (wv.  For  the 
particular  fonn  kXt/tos  we  cannot  come  nearer  than  the  '  guests ' 
{kXtjtoI)  of  Adonijah  (i  Kings  i.  41,  49).  By  his  use  of  the  term 
St.  Paul  places  himself  on  a  level  at  once  with  the  great  Old 
Testament  saints  and  with  the  Twelve  who  had  been  'called' 
expressly  by  Christ  (Mark  i.  17;  ii.  14  ||).  The  same  combina- 
tion KXrjTos  dnoar.  occurs  in  I  Cor.  i.  i,  but  is  not  used  elsewhere 
by  St.  Paul  or  any  of  the  other  Apostles.  In  these  two  Epistles 
St.  Paul  has  to  vindicate  the  parity  of  his  own  call  (on  the  way 
to  Damascus,  cf.  also  Acts  xxvi.  17)  with  that  of  the  elder 
Apostles. 

On  the  relation  of  n^TjrSt  to  t>c\fKT6t  see  Lft.  on  Col.  iii.  I  a.    There  If 

a  difference  between  the  usage  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles.  In  the  Gospell 
nXrjToi  are  all  who  are  invited  to  enter  Christ's  kingdom,  whether  or  not  they 
accept  the  invitation  ;  the  ntXtKToi  are  a  smaller  group,  selected  to  special 
honour  (Matt.  xxii.  14).  In  St  Paul  both  words  are  applied  to  the 
same  persons;  KKriT6s  implies  that  the  call  has  been  not  only  given  but 
obeyed. 

dir6aToXo«.  It  is  well  known  that  this  word  is  used  in  two 
senses ;  a  narrower  sense  in  which  it  was  applied  by  our  Lord 
Himself  to  the  Twelve  (Luke  vi.  13 ;  Mark  iii.  14  v.l.),  and  a  wider 
in  which  it  includes  certainly  Barnabas  (Acts  xiv.  4,  14)  and 
probably  James,  the  Lord's  brother  (Gal.  i.  19),  Andronicus  and 
Junias  (Rom.  x\i  7),  and  many  others  (cf.  i  Cor.  xii.  28;  Eph. 
iv.  11;  DidacM  xi,  xii,  &c. ;  also  esp.  Lightfoot,  Gal.  p.  92flF. ; 
Harnack  m  Texte  u.  Untersuch.  ii.  1 1 1  ff.).  Strictly  speaking 
St.  Paul  could  only  claim  to  be  an  Apostle  in  the  wider  accepta- 
tion of  the  term  ;  he  lays  stress,  however,  justly  on  the  fact  that  be  is 
rJki^TOf  aitoaroko^,  i.  e.  not  merely  an  Apostle  by  virtue  of  possessing 


X.  L]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  5 

such  qualifications  as  are  described  in  Acts  i.  21,  a  a,  but  through 
a  direct  intervention  of  Christ.  At  the  same  time  it  should  be 
remembered  that  St.  Paul  lays  stress  on  this  fact  not  with  a  view 
to  personal  aggrandizement,  but  only  with  a  view  to  commend  his 
Gospel  with  the  weight  which  he  knows  that  it  deserves. 

d<j>upio-fi^Kos :  in  a  double  sense,  by  God  (as  in  Gal.  i.  15)  and 
by  man  (Acts  xiii.  3).  The  first  sense  is  most  prominent  here  ;  or 
rather  it  includes  the  second,  which  marks  the  historic  fulfilment  of 
the  Divine  purpose.  The  free  acceptance  of  the  human  commis- 
sion may  enable  us  to  understand  how  there  is  room  for  free  will 
even  in  the  working  out  of  that  which  has  been  pre-ordained  by 
God  (see  below  on  ch.  xi).  And  yet  the  three  terms,  8ov\os, 
icKt}t6s,  d<{j(opi(Tfievos,  all  scrve  to  emphasize  the  essentially  Scriptural 
doctrine  that  human  ministers,  even  Apostles,  are  but  instruments 
in  the  hand  of  God,  with  no  initiative  or  merit  of  their  own. 

This  conception  is  not  confined  to  the  Canonical  Books :  it  is  found  also 
in  Assump.  Mays.  i.  14  itaque  excogitavit  et  invenit  me,  qui  ai  initio  orbis 
ttrrarum  praeparatus  sum,  ut  sim  arbiter  testamenti  illius. 

CIS  cfioyyAioK  ©coO.  The  particular  function  for  which  St.  Paul 
is  '  set  apart '  is  to  preach  the  Gospel  of  God.  The  Gospel  is 
sometimes  described  as  '  of  God '  and  sometimes  '  of  Christ '  (e.  g. 
Mark  i.  i).  Here,  where  the  thought  is  of  the  gradual  unfolding 
in  time  of  a  plan  conceived  in  eternity, '  of  God '  is  the  more  appro- 
priate. It  is  probably  a  mistake  in  these  cases  to  restrict  the  force 
of  the  gen.  to  one  particular  aspect  ('  the  Gospel  of  which  God 
is  the  author,'  or  *  of  which  Christ  is  the  subject ') :  all  aspects  are 
included  in  which  the  Gospel  is  in  any  way  related  to  God  and 
Christ. 

cuayyAioK.  The  fundamental  passage  for  the  use  of  this  word 
appears  to  be  Mark  i.  14,  15  (cf.  Matt.  iv.  23).  We  cannot  doubt 
that  our  Lord  Himself  described  by  this  term  (or  its  Aramaic 
equivalent)  His  announcement  of  the  arrival  of  the  Messianic 
Time.  It  does  not  appear  to  be  borrowed  directly  from  the  LXX 
(where  the  word  occurs  in  all  only  two  [or  three]  times,  and  once  for 
*  the  reward  of  good  tidings ' ;  the  more  common  form  is  fvayyeXta). 
It  would  seem,  however,  that  there  was  some  influence  from  the 
rather  frequent  use  (twenty  times)  of  eiayy^Xifeij/,  €i;ayyfXiffo-da», 
especially  in  Second  Isaiah  and  the  Psalms  in  connexion  with  the 
news  of  the  Great  Deliverance  or  Restoration  from  the  Captivity. 
A  conspicuous  passage  is  Isa.  Ixi.  i,  which  is  quoted  or  taken  as 
a  text  in  Luke  iv.  18.  The  group  of  words  is  well  established  in 
Synoptic  usage  {tvayytXiov,  Matthew  four  times,  Mark  eight,  Acts 
two;  tvayyf\i^e(T6ai,  Matthew  one,  Luke  ten,  Acts  fifteen).  It 
evidently  took  a  strong  hold  on  the  imagination  of  St.  Paul  in 
connexion  with  his  own  call  to  missionary  labours  {tvayytXiov  sixty 


6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [I.  l-t. 

dmes  in  Epp.  Paul,  besides  in  Epp.  and  Apoc.  only  twice ;  nay- 
ytXi^taBcu  twenty  times  in  Epp.  Paul.,  besides  once  mid.  seven  times 
pass.).  The  disparity  between  St.  Paul  and  the  other  N.  T.  writers 
outside  Evv.  Synopt.  Acts  is  striking.  The  use  of  tvayytXiov  for 
a  Book  lies  beyond  our  limits  (Sanday,  Bamp.  Led.  p.  3i7«.)» 
the  way  is  prepared  for  it  by  places  like  Mark  i.  i ;  Apoc.  xiv.  6. 

2.    TrpoeTnrjYYeiXaTO.      The    words    tnayytXia,    i-nayyiWtaQai    OCCUr 

several  times  in  LXX,  but  not  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  great 
'  promises '  made  by  God  to  His  people.     The  first  instance  of 

this  use  is  Ps.  Sol.  Xii.  8  Km  Saioi  Kvpiov  Kkrjpovo^ir^daitv  (nayytXiat 
Kvpiov:  cf.  vii.  9  Tox)  (Ktrjaai  ritv  oiKov  'laKut^  els  TjfjLtpav  iv  rj  fTrriyyfCka 
aiiTois,  and  xvii.  6  oU  ovk  tnrjyytika),  fifra  /3/ar   d(j)€iXoyro  :   a  groUp  of 

passages  which  is  characteristic  of  the  attitude  of  wistful  expecta- 
tion in  the  Jewish  people  during  the  century  before  the  Birth  of 
Christ.  No  wonder  that  the  idea  was  eagerly  seized  upon  by  the 
primitive  Church  as  it  began  to  turn  the  pages  of  the  O.  T.  and  to 
find  one  feature  after  another  of  the  history  of  its  Founder  and  of 
its  own  history  foretold  there. 

We  notice  that  in  strict  accordance  with  what  we  may  believe  to  have  been 

the  historical  sequence,  neither  (irafyeXia  nor  iirafyiWeadcu  (in  the  technical 
•ense)  occur  in  the  Gospels  until  we  come  to  Luke  xxiv.  49,  where  inay- 
ytKia  is  used  of  the  promised  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  we  no  sooner  crosg 
over  to  the  Acts  than  the  use  becomes  frequent.  The  words  cover  (i")  the 
promises  made  by  Christ,  in  particular  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (which 
is  referred  to  the  Father  in  Acts  i.  4) ;  so  iirayytKia  three  times  in  the  Acts, 
Gal.  iii.  14,  and  Eph.  i.  13  ;  ^ii)  the  promises  of  the  O  T.  fulfilled  in  Chris- 
tianity; so  inayytKia  four  times  in  Acts  (note  esp.  Acts  xiii.  3a,  xxvL  6), 
some  eight  times  each  in  Rom.  and  Gal.,  both  inayytXia  and  ivayye^^taBat 
repeatedly  in  Heb.,  &c. ;  (iii)  in  a  yet  wider  sense  of  promises,  whether  as  yet 
fulfilled  or  unfulfilled,  e.g.  2  Cor.  i.  ao  oatu  7d/)  irrayytXiat  e«ot)  (cf.  vii.  i) ; 
I  Tim.  iv.  8 ;  2  Tim.  i.  i ;  a  Pet  iii.  4  ij  inayytXia  r^i  vapovaiat  airrov. 

iv  Ypa(f)ais  dyiais  :  perhaps  the  earliest  extant  instance  of  the  use 
of  this  phrase  (Philo  prefers  itpal  ypa<f>ai,  Upal  jSt'/SXoi,  6  Upos  \6yos : 
cf.  Sanday,  Bamp.  Led.  p.  72) ;  but  the  use  is  evidently  well  estab- 
lished, and  the  idea  of  a  collection  of  authoritative  books  goes 
back  to  the  prologue  to  Ecclus.  In  ypa(pais  Ayiais  the  absence  of 
the  art.  throws  the  stress  on  iyiais ;  the  books  are  '  holy '  as  con- 
taining the  promises  of  God  Himself  written  down  by  inspired 

men  (8ta  tS>v  irpo(j)TjTi>¥  avTov). 

8.  ytvoftivou.  This  is  contrasted  with  Spia-dfvrot,  ynmpxvov  denot» 
ing,  as  usually,  '  transition  from  one  state  or  mode  of  subsistence 
to  another '  {Sp.  Comm.  on  i  Cor.  i.  30) ;  it  is  rightly  paraphrased 
'  [Who]  was  born,*  and  is  practically  equivalent  to  the  Johannean 

fKd6vTos  fls  rov  Kocrpov. 

Ik  <nr^p|iaTo$  Aa^i'S.  For  proof  that  the  belief  in  the  descent  of 
the  Messiah  from  David  was  a  living  belief  see  Mark  xii.  35  flF. 

wmt  Xryovfrtc   ot   ypapnarfit  on  6   Xpicrros  vi6s  i<m  Aa^id  ]   (cf-    Mark 


I.  8,  4.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  J 

xi.  lo  and  x.  47  f.) :  also  Ps.  Sol.  xvii.  23  ff.  Tit,  xvpu,  nal  a»a<n^iam 

airrois  Tov  ^aaikta  aiiTuv  vlov  £iavili  tie  rhv  Kaipov  ov  oi8as  ov,  6  Q«6t,  row 
(SmrtXcvo-at  «Vi  'lapaijX  iraiia  aov  k.t.\.  ;  4  Ezra  xii.  32  (in  three  of  the 
extant  versions,  Syr.  Arab.  Armen.);  and  the  Talmud  and  Targums 
(passages  in  Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol.  p.  341).  Our  Lord  Himself 
appears  to  have  made  little  use  of  this  title :  he  raises  a  difficulty 
about  it  (Mark  xil  35-37  H).  But  this  verse  of  Ep.  to  Romans 
shows  that  Christians  early  pointed  to  His  descent  as  fulfilling  one 
of  the  conditions  of  Messiahship ;  similarly  2  Tim.  ii.  8  (where  the 
assertion  is  made  a  part  of  St.  Paul's  '  Gospel ') ;  Acts  ii.  30 ;  Heb. 
vii.  14  'it  is  evident  that  our  Lord  hath  sprung  out  of  Judah'  (see 
also  Eus.  H.  E.  I.  vii.  17,  Joseph  and  Mary  from  the  same  tribe). 
Neither  St.  Paul  nor  the  Acts  nor  Epistle  to  Hebrews  defines  more 
nearly  how  the  descent  is  traced.  For  this  we  have  to  go  to 
the  First  and  Third  Gospels,  the  early  chapters  of  which  embody 
wholly  distinct  traditions,  but  both  converging  on  this  point.  There 
is  good  reason  to  think  that  St.  Luke  i,  ii  had  assumed  substan- 
tially its  present  shape  before  a.d.  70  (cf.  Swete,  Apost.  Creed, 
P-  49). 

In  Test.  XII.  Patriarch,  we  find  the  theory  of  a  double  descent  from  Levi 
and  from  Jndah  (Sym.  7  a.vaaTi\aii  'i^p  Kv/xo;  l«  toC  Aci/ct  it%  dpxifp^a  Kal  ix 
TOV  'lovSa  djs  fiafft\ia,  0(6y  itai  av0p<uwov  :  Gad.  8  Snan  ripii^ffojmv  "lovSav  icai 
Afvti  oTi  ({  ainSiv  &varfX(i  Kvpios,  fforrfip  t^  '\aparjK,  &c.  ;  cf.  Hamack's 
note,  Patr.  Apost.  i.  5  a).  This  is  no  doabt  an  inference  from  the  relationship 
of  the  Mother  of  our  Lord  to  Elizabeth  (Luke  i.  36). 

kotA  aapxa  .  .  .  kotA  itviu^ta  are  opposed  to  each  other,  not  as 
*  human '  to  '  divine,'  but  as  '  body '  to  '  spirit,'  both  of  which  in 
Christ  are  human,  though  the  Holiness  which  is  the  abiding  pro- 
perty of  His  Spirit  is  something  more  than  human.  See  on  nara 
nV€Vfi.  Ayiaxr.  below. 

4.  tpiadivTo^ :  *  designated.'  It  is  usual  to  propose  for  this 
word  an  alternative  between  (i)  '  proved  to  be,'  *  marked  out  as 
being '  (d«ix^«Wor,  dno(Pav6itn-os  Chrys.),  and  (ii)  '  appointed,'  '  in- 
stituted,' '  installed,'  in  fact  and  not  merely  in  idea.  For  this  latter 
sense  (which  is  that  adopted  by  most  modern  commentators)  the 
parallels  are  quoted,  Acts  x.  42  ovtos  f<mv  6  itpurpxvos  imh  tov  Qtov 

KptTfjs  (b>vra>y  Kot   veKpS>v,   and   XVii.    3 1    /icXXft  Kpivetv  ,   .   .   iv  avbpX  a 

ipi(Tt.  The  word  itself  does  not  determine  the  meaning  either 
way :  it  must  be  determined  by  the  context  But  here  the  particular 
context  is  also  neutral ;  so  that  we  must  look  to  the  wider  context 
of  St.  Paul's  teaching  generally.  Now  it  is  certain  that  St.  Paul 
did  not  hold  that  the  Son  of  God  became  Son  by  the  Resurrection. 
The  undoubted  Epistles  are  clear  on  this  point  (esp.  2  Cor.  iv.  4 ; 
viii.  9 ;  cf.  Col.  i.  15-19).  At  the  same  time  he  did  regard  the 
Resurrection  as  making  a  difference — if  not  in  the  transcendental 
relations  of  the  Father  to  the  Son  (which  lie  beyond  oiu-  cogni< 


S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [L  4. 

tance),  yet  in  the  visible  manifestation  of  Sonship  as  addressed  to 
the  understanding  of  men  (cf.  esp.  Phil.  ii.  9  dt6  nal  6  Qt^s  avr6p 

vntpv'^tou't ,   Koi  fX'tploraTO  avr^  r^  ivofta  rh  vntp  nap  oi/o/ia).      This   is 

sufficiently  expressed  by  our  word  '  designated,'  which  might 
perhaps  with  advantage  also  be  used  in  the  two  places  in  the  Acts. 
It  is  true  that  Christ  becomes  Judge  in  a  sense  in  which  He  does 
not  become  Son ;  but  He  is  Judge  too  not  wholly  by  an  external 
creation  but  by  an  inherent  right.  The  Divine  declaration,  as  it 
were,  endorses  and  proclaims  that  right. 

The  Latin  rersions  are  not  very  helpfnl.  The  common  rendering  WM 
prtueUstinatus  (to  expressly  Rafinos  [Orig.-lat.]  ad  lot. ;  cf.  Introd.  (  7). 
Hilary  of  Poitiera  has  destinatus,  which  Rniinai  also  prefers.  Tertollian 
reads  definitus. 

uloS  ecou.  '  Son  of  God,'  like  '  Son  of  Man/  was  a  recognized 
tide  of  the  Messiah  (cf.  Enoch  cv.  a  ;  4  Ezra  vii.  a8,  29 ;  xiii.  3a, 
37,  52 ;  xiv.  9,  in  all  which  places  the  Almighty  speaks  of  the 
Messiah  as  '  My  Son,'  though  the  exact  phrase  *  Son  of  God  '  does 
not  occur).  It  is  remarkable  that  in  the  Gospels  we  very  rarely 
find  it  used  by  our  Lord  Himself,  though  in  face  of  Matt,  xxvii.  43, 
John  X.  36,  cf.  Matt.  xxi.  37  f.  al.,  it  cannot  be  said  that  He  did 
not  use  it.  It  is  more  often  used  to  describe  the  impression  made 
upon  others  (e.g.  the  demonized,  Mark  iiL  11,  v.  7  j  ;  the  cen- 
turion, Mark  xv.  39  ||),  and  it  is  implied  by  the  words  of  the 
Tempter  (Matt  iv.  3,  6  ||)  and  the  voice  from  heaven  (Mark 
i.  II  B,  ix.  711).  The  crowning  instance  is  the  confession  of 
St.  Peter  in  the  version  which  is  probably  derived  from  the  Logia, 
'  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,'  Matt,  xvi,  16.  It 
is  consistent  with  the  whole  of  our  Lord's  method  that  He  should 
have  been  thus  reticent  in  putting  forward  his  own  claims,  and  that 
He  should  have  left  them  to  be  inferred  by  the  free  and  spon- 
taneous working  of  the  minds  of  His  disciples.  Nor  is  it  sur- 
prising that  the  title  should  have  been  chosen  by  the  Early  Church 
to  express  its  sense  of  that  which  was  transcendent  in  the  Person  of 
Christ :  see  esp.  the  common  text  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  L  i  (where 
the  words,  if  not  certainly  genuine,  in  any  case  are  an  extremely 
early  addition),  and  this  passage,  the  teaching  of  which  is  very 
direct  and  explicit.  The  further  history  of  the  term,  with  its 
strengthening  addition  novoyf^^qs,  may  be  followed  in  Swete,  Apost. 
Creed,  p.  24  ff.,  where  recent  attempts  to  restrict  the  Sonship  of 
Christ  to  His  earthly  manifestation  are  duly  weighed  and  discussed. 
In  this  passage  we  have  seen  that  the  declaration  of  Sonship  dates 
from  the  Resurrection:  but  we  have  also  seen  that  St.  Paul  re- 
garded the  Incarnate  Christ  as  existing  before  His  Incarnation ; 
and  it  is  as  certain  that  when  he  speaks  of  Him  as  6  Btof  v'lii 
(Rom.  viii.  32),  6  iocurov  vloy  (viii.  3),  he  intends  to  cover  the  period 
of  pre-existence,  as  that  St.  John  identifies  the  \unny*vi\s  with  the 


S.  4.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  9 

pre-existent  Logos.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  to  think  that 
the  Early  Church,  so  far  as  it  reflected  upon  these  terms,  under- 
stood them  diflferently. 

There  are  three  moments  to  each  of  which  are  applied  with  variations  the 
words  of  Ps.  ii.  7  '  Thon  art  my  Son  ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.'  They 
are  (i)  the  Baptism  (Mark  i.  1 1 1) ;  (ii)  the  Transfiguration  ^Mark  ix.  7  ||) ; 
(iii)  the  Resurrection  (Acts  xiii.  33).  We  can  see  here  the  origin  of  the  Ebio- 
nite  idea  of  progressive  exaltation,  which  is  however  held  in  check  by  the 
doctrin;  of  the  Logos  in  both  its  forms,  Pauline  (2  Cor.  iv.  4, &c.,  ut  sup.) 
and  Johannean  (John  L  i  ff.).  The  moments  in  question  are  so  many  stepi 
in  the  passage  through  an  earthly  life  of  One  who  came  forth  from  God  and 
returned  to  God,  not  stages  in  the  gradual  deification  of  one  who  began  hit 
career  as  }fn.\h$  ivipomo*. 

iv  Sufdfiei :  not  with  vlov  Brov,  as  Weiss,  Lips,  and  others,  *  Son 
of  God  in  power,'  opposed  to  the  present  stale  of  humiliation,  but 
rather  adverbially,  qualifying  opiaBttnot,  '  declared  with  might  to  be 
Son  of  God.'  The  Resurrection  is  regarded  as  a  'miracle'  or 
'  signal  manifestation  of  Divine  Power.'  Comp.  esp.  2  Cor.  xiii.  4 
ffTTavpmSr)  f^  aadfvfiai,  iiXXa  (^  (k  Bvpafxtws  Qfov,  This  parallel  de- 
termines the  connexion  of  iv  8vv. 

kotA  iTKcCfia  dyiw«unf|$  :  not  (i)  =  Uv(vfia°Ayioy,  the  Third  Person 
in  the  Trinity  (as  the  Patristic  writers  generally  and  some  moderns), 
because  the  antithesis  of  oap^  and  nixvua  requires  that  they  shall 
be  in  the  same  person  ;  nor  (ii),  with  Beng.  and  other  moderns 
(even  Lid.)  as  the  Divine  Nature  in  Christ  as  if  the  Human  Nature 
were  coextensive  with  the  adp^  and  the  Divine  Nature  were  co- 
extensive with  the  nvevpa,  which  would  be  very  like  the  error  of 
Apollinaris ;  but  (iii)  the  human  nvfvfia,  like  the  human  a-dp^, 
distinguished  however  from  that  of  ordinary  humduity  by  an 
exceptional  and  transcendent  Holiness  (cf.  Heb.  ii.  17;  iv.  15  'it 
behoved  Him  in  all  things  to  be  made  like  unto  His  brethren  .  . 
yet  without  sin'). 

4Y'^'^<'^^i  not  fotmd  in  profane  literature,  occurs  three  times  in  LXX  of 
the  Psalms,  not  always  in  agreement  with  Heb.  (Tss.  xcv.  6  [xcvi.  6 
'strength'];  xcvi.  la  [xcvii.  12  'holy  name,'  lit.  'memorial'];  cxiiv.  5 
[cxlv.  5  'honour']).  In  all  three  places  it  ia  used  of  the  Divine  attribute; 
but  in  a  Mace.  iii.  la  we  have  rj  tov  rv-nov  AyiaiavvT).  In  Test.  XII.  Pair. 
Levi  18  the  identical  phrase  vvtv^i.  ifiai<T.  occurs  of  the  saints  in  Paradise. 
The  passage  is  Christian  in  its  character,  but  may  belong  to  the  original 
work  and  is  in  any  case  probably  early.  If  so,  the  use  of  the  phrase  is  so 
different  from  that  in  the  text,  that  the  presumfition  would  be  that  it  was  not 
coined  for  the  first  time  by  St.  Paul.  The  same  instance  would  show  that 
the  phrase  does  not  ^•{  itself  and  alone  necessarily  imply  divinity.  The 
wvfvpa  dyicuavvrji,  though  not  the  Divine  nature,  is  that  in  which  the  Divinity 
or  Divine  Personality  resided.  The  clear  definition  of  this  point  was  one  of 
the  last  results  of  the  Christoloj^'ical  controversies  of  the  fifth  and  sixth 
centuries  (Loofs,  Dogmengesch.  §  39,  3).     For  d7(a><r.  see  on  O7«o»  ver.  7. 

1%  dmoTiio-Eus  ceKpwi' :  a  remarkable  phrase  as  applied  to  Christ. 
His  was  not  a  '  resurrection  of  dead  persons'  ('  ajenrisynge  of  dead 


iO  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [I.  4,  & 

men'  Wic.)  but  of  a  single  dead  person.  We  might  expect  rathef 
ptKpov  or  (K  vtKpau  (as  in  i  Pet.  i.  3) ;  and  it  is  probable  that  this 
form  is  only  avoided  because  of  e|  dvaardatctt  coming  just  before. 
But  v*npa)v  coalesces  closely  in  meaning  with  dvatrr.,  so  as  to  give  it 
very  much  the  force  of  a  compound  word,  '  by  a  dead-rising ' 
{Twilenauferslehung),  '  a  resurrection  such  as  that  when  dead  per- 
sons rise.'     Christ  is  'the  first-born  from  the  dead'  (Col.  i.  18). 

TOO  Kupiou  i^fiuK.  Although  in  O.  T.  regularly  applied  to  God 
as  equivalent  of  Adonat,  Jakveh,  this  word  does  not  in  itself 
necessarily  involve  Divinity.     The  Jews  applied  it  to  their  Messiah 

(Mark  xii.  36,  37  B  ;    Ps.  Sol.  xvii.  36  ^aaiXtvs  avrcbv  ;^pt(rrit   icvpios) 

without  thereby  pronouncing  Him  to  be  'God';  they  expressly 
distinguished  between  the  Messiah  and  the  Memra  or  '  Word '  of 
Jehovah  (Weber,  Altsyn.  TheoL  p.  178).  On  the  lips  of  Christiana 
Kvpioj  denotes  the  idea  of  '  Sovereignty,'  primarily  over  themselves 
as  the  society  of  believers  (Col.  i.  1 8,  &c.),  but  also  over  all  creation 
(Phil.  ii.  10,  II ;  Col.  i.  16,  17).  The  title  was  given  to  our  Lord 
even  in  His  lifetime  (John  xiii.  13  'Ye  call  me,  Master  (6  8tdd- 
i/KoXot),  and,  Lord  (6  Ki'ptoj) :  and  ye  say  well ;  for  so  I  am '),  but 
without  a  full  consciousness  of  its  significance :  it  was  only  after 
flie  Resurrection  that  the  Apostles  took  it  to  express  their  central 
belief  (Phil.  ii.  9  ff.,  &c.). 

6.  iXdpofiei'.  The  best  explanation  of  the  plur.  seems  to  be  that 
St.  Paul  associates  himself  with  the  other  Apostles. 

X<Spis  is  an  important  word  with  a  distinctively  theological  use 
and  great  variety  of  meaning:  (i)  objectively,  'sweetness,'  'at- 
tractiveness,' a  sense  going  back  to  Homer  {Od.  viii.  175);  Ps.  xlv. 

(xliv.)   3   i^fxyQr]    xdpn   iv  x^LXtai    (rov '.    Eccl.   X.    1 2    \6yoi   OTOfiarot 

a-o(pov  x^'-pi-'i '•  Luke  iv.  22  \6yoL  x'^P'-to';  :  (2)  subjectively  'favour,' 
'  kindly  feeling,'  'good  will,'  especially  as  shown  by  a  superior 
towards  an  inferior.  In  Eastern  despotisms  this  personal  feeling 
on  the  part  of  the  king  or  chieftain  is  most  important :  hence 
tiptiv  x^P^"  **  ^^^  commonest  form  of  phrase  in  the  O.  T.  (Gen, 
vi.  8 ;  xviii.  3,  &c.) ;  in  many  of  these  passages  (esp.  in  anthropo< 
morphic  scenes  where  God  is  represented  as  holding  colloquy 
with  man)  it  is  used  of  '  finding  favour '  in  the  sight  of  God.  Thus 
the  word  comes  to  be  used  (3)  of  the  '  favour '  or  '  good  will ' 
of  God ;  and  that  (a)  generally,  as  in  Zech.  xii.  10  «x<»  •  •  irvtvfia 
xdpiTos  Koi  oiKTipfini^  but  far  more  commonly  in  N.  T.  (Luke  ii.  40, 
John  i.  14,  16,  &c.);  (;3)  by  a  usage  which  is  specially  characteristic 
of  Sl  Paul  (though  not  confined  to  him),  with  opposition  to 
o(l)fCXtjfia, '  debt '  (Rom.  iv.  4),  and  to  tpya, '  works '  (implying  merit, 
Rom.  xi.  6),  '  UTuarmd  favour ' — with  stress  upon  the  fact  that 
it  is  unearned,  and  therefore  as  bestowed  not  upon  the  righteous 
but  on  sinners  (cf  esp.  Rom.  v.  6  with  v.  a).  In  this  sense  the 
word  takes  a  prominent  place  in  the  vocabulary  of  Justificatioa 


I.  6. J  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  II 

(4)  The  cause  being  put  for  the  eflfect  x°P^^  denotes  (a)  *  the  state 
of  grace  or  favour'  which  the  Christian  enjoys  (Rom.  v.  2),  01 
($),  like  xap'<»"/*a,  any  particular  gift  or  gifts  of  grace  (nXfipTjs  ^(aptroi 
Acts  vi.  8).  We  note  however  that  the  later  technical  use,  esp. 
of  the  Latin  gratia,  for  the  Divine  prompting  and  help  which 
precedes  and  accompanies  right  action  does  not  correspond  exactly 
to  the  usage  of  N.  T.  (5)  As  xapit  or  'kindly  feeling'  in  the 
donor  evokes  a  corresponding  xap*f  or  '  gratitude '  in  the  recipient, 
it  comes  to  mean  simply  'thanks'  (i  Cor.  x.  30). 

Xfipi*'  here  =  that  general  favour  which  the  Ap.  shares  with  all 
Christians  and  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  one ;  dTroaToXi^i'  =  the  more 
peculiar  gifts  of  an  Apostle. 

We  observe  that  St.  Paul  regards  this  spiritual  endowment  as 
conferred  upon  him  by  Christ  (8t'  ol) — we  may  add,  acting  through 
His  Spirit,  as  the  hke  gifts  are  described  elsewhere  as  proceeding 
from  the  Spirit  (i  Cor.  xii,  &c.). 

€is  AiraKo^K  Triarews :  may  be  rendered  with  Vulg.  ad  ohediendum 
fidei  provided  that  mar.  is  not  hardened  too  much  into  the  sense 
which  it  afterwards  acquired  of  a  '  body  of  doctrine '  (with  art. 
Tji  niarei  Jude  3).  At  this  early  date  a  body  of  formulated  doctrine, 
though  it  is  rapidly  coming  to  exist,  does  not  still  exist :  Trtorit 
is  still,  what  it  is  predominantly  to  St.  Paul,  the  lively  act  or  impulse 
of  adhesion  to  Christ.  In  confessing  Christ  the  lips  '  obey '  this 
impulse  of  the  heart  (Rom.  x.  10).  From  another  point  of  view, 
going  a  step  further  back,  we  may  speak  of  *  obeying  the  Gospel ' 
(Rom.  X.  16).  Faith  is  the  act  of  assent  by  which  the  Gospel  is 
appropriated.     See  below  on  ver.  17. 

iy  iroai  tois  iBvecriv.  Gif.  argues  for  the  rendering  '  among  all 
nations '  on  the  ground  that  a  comprehensive  address  is  best  suited 
to  the  opening  of  the  Epistle,  and  to  the  proper  meaning  of  the 
phrase  navTa  ra  (6vri  (cf.  Gen.  xviii.  18,  &c.).  But  St.  Paul's  com- 
mission as  an  Apostle  was  specially  to  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  ii.  8),  and  it 
!S  more  pointed  to  tell  the  Roman  Christians  that  they  thus  belong 
to  his  special  province  (ver.  6),  than  to  regard  them  merely  as  one 
among  the  mass  of  nations.  This  is  also  clearly  the  sense  in  which 
Ihe  word  is  used  in  ver.  1 3.     Cf.  Hort,  Rom.  and  Eph.  p.  2 1  f. 

oirep  TOO  6K6|xaTos  ofirou.  This  is  rather  more  than  simply  *  for 
His  glory.'  The  idea  goes  back  to  the  O.  T.  (Ps.  cvi.  [cv.]  8 ; 
Ezek.  XX.  14;  Mai.  i.  11).  The  Name  of  God  is  intimately 
connected  with  the  revelation  of  God,  Israel  is  the  instrument  or 
minister  of  that  revelation;  so  that  by  the  fidelity  of  Israel  the 
revelation  itself  is  made  more  impressive  and  commended  in  the 
eyes  of  other  nations.  But  the  Christian  Church  is  the  new  Israel : 
and  hence  the  gaining  of  fresh  converts  and  their  fidelity  when 
gained  serves  in  hke  manner  to  commend  the  further  revelation 
made  of  God  in  Christ  (avroO,  cf.  Acts  v.  41  \  Phil.  ii.  9). 


lA  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [I.  6,  % 

0.  Ir  ot« :  not  merely  in  a  geographical  sense  of  a  Jewish  com- 
munity among  Gentiles,  but  clearly  numbering  the  Roman  Church 
among  Gentile  communities. 

KXt|Tol  *lT|aou  XpuTToC:  'called  ones  of  Jesus  Christ':  gen.  of 
possession. 

7.  i¥  'P«i)i>|| :  om.  G  g,  ScAol.  cod.  47  (rA  ip  'Pw/i^  oSrt  iv  rg  t^Tiyrjatt 
oCrt  iv  T^  prjro)  fivrjfiovtvfi,  i.  e.  some  commentator  whom  the  Scholiast 
had  before  him).  G  reads  navi  toU  ovaiy  iv  dydnri  etov  (similarly 
d*  Vulg.  codd.  and  the  commentary  of  Ambrstr.  seem  to  imply 
irao-i  Toit  oZfTiv  iv  'Prnfiji  iv  dyaiij]  Qtov).  The  Same  MS.  OmitS  roit 
iv  'Pi/iff  in  ver.  15.  These  facts,  taken  together  with  the  fluc- 
tuating position  of  the  final  doxology,  xvi  25-27,  would  seem 
to  give  some  ground  for  the  inference  that  there  were  in  circulation 
in  ancient  times  a  few  copies  of  the  Epistle  from  which  all  local 
references  had  been  removed.  It  is  however  important  to  notice 
that  the  authorities  which  place  the  doxology  at  the  end  of  ch.  xiv 
are  quite  different  from  those  which  omit  iv  'Pco^/;  here  and  in 
ver.  15.  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  question  see  the  Introduction, 
§6. 

kXt]tois  dyiois.  KXr;r^  Ayla  represents  consistently  in  LXX  the 
phrase  which  is  translated  in  AV.  and  RV.  *  an  holy  convocation  * 
(so  eleven  times  in  Lev.  xxiii  and  Ex.  xii.  16).  The  rendering  ap- 
pears to  be  due  to  a  misunderstanding,  the  Heb.  word  used  being  one 
with  which  the  LXX  translators  were  not  familiar.  Whereas  in 
Heb.  the  phrase  usually  runs,  *  on  such  a  day  there  shall  be  a  holy 
convocation,'  the  LXX  treat  the  word  translated  convocation  as  an 
adj.  and  make  'day'  the  subject  of  the  sentence,  'such  a  day 
(or  feast)  shall  be  KXijn)  dyLa,  i.  e.  specially  appointed,  chosen, 
distinguished,  holy  (day).'  This  is  a  striking  instance  of  the  way 
in  which  St.  Paul  takes  a  phrase  which  was  clearly  in  the  first 
instance  a  creation  of  the  LXX  and  current  wholly  through 
it,  appropriating  it  to  Christian  use,  and  recasts  its  mean- 
ing, substituting  a  theological  sense  for  a  liturgical.  Obviously 
kXtitoIs  has  the  same  sense  as  KXrjTos  in  ver.  i:  as  he  himself  was 
*  called '  to  be  an  Apostle,  so  all  Christians  were  *  called '  to  be 
Christians;  and  they  personally  receive  the  consecration  which 
under  the  Old  Covenant  was  attached  to  '  times  and  seasons.' 

For  the  following  detailed  statement  of  the  evidence  respecting  «Xi;r^  Ayia 
we  are  indebted  to  Dr.  Driver : — 

kKtjt^  cotresponds  to  ^^9,  trom  K*^^  t»  emU,  a  technical  term  almoat 
wholly  confined  to  the  Priests'  Code,  denoting  apparently  a  special  religiotu 
meeting,  or  '  convocation,'  held  on  certain  sacred  days. 

It  is  represented  by  KKrjrIi,  Ex.  xii.  16  b;  Lev.  xxiii.  7,  8,  37,  35,  36; 
Num.  xxviii.  35.  Now  in  all  these  passages,  where  the  Heb.  has  '«m  such 
a  day  there  shall  be  a  holy  convocation,'  the  LXX  have  <  snch  a  day  shall 
be  K\rfrii  Ayia,'  i.e.  they  alter  the  form  of  the  sentence,  make  day  subject, 
aad  use  sXi}r(i  with  its  proper  force  w  aa  adj.  'shall  be  a  calitd  (t.e. 


I.  7.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  1$ 

a  specially  appointed,  chosen,  distinguished*),  Aofy  (day)  ' ;  of.  cX.  in  //.  is. 
165  and  Rom,  i.  i.  They  read  analogously  with  ^"7?^  in  Lev.  xxiii.  a  at 
iopToi  Kvpiov,  Ay  KoXiffeTf  aircis  leXriTis  dyias  (cf.  v.  37),  31  «o2  KoXiatrt 
ravrqv  t^v  ijnipav  kXijttiV  ayia  tarai  vfuv.  In  Lev.  xxiii.  3  (cf.  v.  24), 
uXririi  Ayia  seems  to  be  in  apposition  with  av&vavais.  The  usage  of  kKijHi 
in  Lev.  xxiii  is,  however,  such  as  to  suggest  that  it  was  probably  felt  to 
have  the  form  of  a  subst  (sc.  '^iiipa)  ;  cf.  i-nucXriTos. 

This  view  of  k\.  is  supported  by  their  rendering  of  K'JiPl?  elsewhere.  In 
Ex.  xii.  1 6  a,  Lev.  xxiii.  4  they  also  alter  the  form  of  the  sentence,  and 
render  it  by  a  verb,  KXr]dr}atTai  iyia,  and  iyias  xaXifferf  respectively. 

In  Num.  xxviii.  18,  26  («ai  ry  fiiJi(p<}  twv  veuv  ....  kiriKXrjTot  dyia  larax 
ifuv :  similarly  xxix.  1,  7,  la),  they  express  it  by  ewiKKrjTos  (the  same  word 
nsed  ())  ■fit'-ipa  ^  irpdiTt]  eirlKXrjTOi  ayid  'iarai  {//xiv)  ib.  i.  16;  xxvi.  9,  for  the 
ordinary  partic.  called,  summoned),  i.e.  I  suppose  in  the  same  sense  of 
specially  appointed  (cf.  Josh.  xx.  9  al  voXtn  at  eniv\i]Toi  rots  vloU  lapa^K). 

Is.  i.  13  '  the  calling  of  a  convocation '  is  represented  in  LXX  by  ^ttipai 
ltfyd\t]v,  and  iv.  5  '  all  her  convocations  *  by  ra  ittpiKxicKqi  airrji. 

From  all  this,  it  occurs  to  me  that  the  LXX  were  not  familiar  with  the  term 
JOpD,  and  did  not  know  what  it  meant.  I  think  it  probable  that  they  pro- 
nounced it  not  as  a  subst.  ^i^l?,  but  as  a  participU  *^ptp  ('  called  *). 

dyiois.  The  history  of  this  word  would  seem  to  be  very  parallel 
to  that  of  Kkr\To\i.  It  is  more  probable  that  its  meaning  developed 
by  a  process  of  deepening  from  without  inwards  than  by  extension 
from  within  outwards.  Its  connotation  would  seem  to  have  been 
at  first  physical  and  ceremonial,  and  to  have  become  gradually 
more  and  more  ethical  and  spiritual,  (i)  The  fundamental  idea 
appears  to  be  that  of  'separation.'  So  the  word  'holy'  came 
to  be  applied  in  all  the  Semitic  languages,  (2)  to  that  which  was 
'  set  apart '  for  the  service  of  God,  whether  things  (e.  g.  x  Kings  vii. 
51  [37] )  or  persons  (e,  g.  Ex.  xxii.  31  [29] ).  But  (3)  inasmuch  as 
that  which  was  so  '  set  apart '  or '  consecrated '  to  God  was  required 
to  be  free  from  blemish,  the  word  would  come  to  denote  '  freedom 
from  blemish,  spot,  or  stain' — in  the  first  instance  physical,  but 
by  degrees,  as  moral  ideas  ripened,  also  moral.  (4)  At  first  the 
idea  of  'holiness,'  whether  physical  or  moral,  would  be  directly 
associated  with  the  service  of  God,  but  it  would  gradually  become 
detached  from  this  connexion  and  denote  '  freedom  from  blemish, 
spot,  or  stain,'  in  itself  and  apart  from  any  particular  destination. 
In  this  sense  it  might  be  applied  even  to  God  Himself,  and  we 
find  it  so  applied  even  in  the  earliest  Hebrew  literature  (e.  g. 
I  Sam.  vi.  20).  And  in  proportion  as  the  conception  of  God  itself 
became  elevated  and  purified,  the  word  which  expressed  this 
central  attribute  of  His  Being  would  contract  a  meaning  of  more 
severe  and  awful  purity,  till  at  last  it  becomes  the  culminating 
and  supreme  expression  for  the  very  essence  of  the  Divine  Nature. 
When  once  this  height  had  been  reached  the  sense  so  acquired 

*  Bid  {L»x,  im  LXX.)  dtes  from  Phavoriniu  the  gloss,  kK,  ^  KoKtor^  moI  i 


14  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [l.  7, 

would  be  reflected  back  over  all  the  lower  uses,  and  the  tendency 
would  be  more  and  more  to  assimilate  the  idea  of  holiness  m 
the  creature  to  that  of  holiness  in  the  Creator.  This  tendency 
is  formulated  in  the  exhortation,  '  Ye  shall  be  holy ;  for  I,  the 
Lord  your  God,  am  holy '  (Lev.  xix.  a,  *c.). 

Such  would  appear  to  have  been  the  history  of  the  word  up  to 
the  time  when  St.  Paul  made  use  of  it  He  would  find  a  series  of 
meanings  ready  to  his  hand,  some  lower  and  some  higher ;  and  he 
chooses  on  this  occasion  not  that  which  is  highest  but  one  rather 
midway  in  the  scale.  When  he  describes  the  Roman  Christians  as 
&yioi,  he  does  not  mean  that  they  reflect  in  their  persons  the  attri- 
butes of  the  All-Holy,  but  only  that  they  are  '  set  apart '  or  '  conse- 
crated '  to  His  service.  At  the  same  time  he  is  not  content  to  rest 
in  this  lower  sense,  but  after  his  manner  he  takes  it  as  a  basis  or 
starting-point  for  the  higher.  Because  Christians  are  '  holy '  in  the 
sense  of '  consecrated,'  they  are  to  become  daily  more  fit  for  the 
service  to  which  they  are  committed  (Rom.  vi.  17,  18,  aa),  they  are 
to  be  'transformed  by  the  renewing'  of  their  mind  (Rom.  xii.  a). 
He  teaches  in  fact  implicitly  if  not  explicitly  the  same  lesson  as 
St.  Peter,  '  As  He  which  called  you  is  holy,  be  ye  yourselves  also 
holy  in  all  manner  of  living  (AV.  conversation);  because  it  is 
written,  Ye  shall  be  holy,  for  I  am  holy '  (i  Pet.  i.  15,  16). 

We   note  that  Ps.  Sol.  had   already  described   the  Messianic 

people  as  Xa6s  ayiot  (koi  (Tvvd^et  \a6v  dywv,  oi  a(f>rjyr](r«rai  iv  hiKaioavvjf 

xvii.  28;  cf.  Dan.  vii.  18-27;  ^"-  '4)'  Similarly  Enoch  ciii.  a; 
cviii.  3,  where  *  books  of  the  holy  ones  =  the  roll  of  the  members 
of  the  Kingdom  '  (Charles).  The  same  phrase  had  been  a  designa- 
tion for  Israel  in  O.  T.,  but  only  in  Deut.  (vii.  6  ;  xiv.  a,  21 ;  xxvi. 
19;  xxviii.  9,  varied  from  Ex.  xix.  6  (6vos  ayiov).  We  have  thus 
another  instance  in  which  St.  Paul  transfers  to  Christians  a  title 
hitherto  appropriated  to  the  Chosen  People.  But  in  this  case  the 
Jewish  Messianic  expectation  had  been  beforehand  with  him. 

There  is  a  certain  element  of  conjecture  in  the  abore  sketch,  which  it 
inevitable  from  the  fact  that  the  earlier  stages  in  the  history  of  the  word  had 
been  already  gone  through  when  the  Hebrew  literature  begins.  The  instances 
above  given  will  show  this.  The  main  problem  is  how  to  accomit  for  the 
application  of  the  same  word  at  once  to  the  Creator  and  to  His  creatures, 
both  things  and  persons.  The  common  view  (accepted  also  by  Delitzsch)  is 
that  in  the  latter  case  it  means  *  separated '  or  '  set  apart '  for  God,  and  in 
the  former  case  that  it  means  'separate  from  evil'  {sejunctus  ai  omni vitio, 
labis  expers).  But  the  link  between  these  two  meanings  is  little  more  than 
verbal ;  and  it  seems  more  probable  that  the  idea  of  holiness  in  God,  whether 
in  the  sense  of  exaltedness  (Baudissin)  or  of  purity  (Delitzsch'),  is  derivative 
rather  than  primary.  There  are  a  number  of  monographs  on  the  subject,  of 
which  perhaps  the  best  and  the  most  accessible  is  that  by  Fr.  Delitzsch 
in  Heriog's  Real-Encyklopddie,  ed.  a,  s.  t.  '  Ileiligkeit  Gottes.'  Instruc- 
tive discussions  will  be  found  in  Davidson,  Ezekitl,  p.  xxxix.  i, ;  Robertson 
Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  pp.  133  ff.,  140  (140  ff.,  150  ed.  a)  ;  Schultx, 
ThioUgy  of  tht  Old  Ttstament,  ii.  131,  167  ff.    A  treatise  by  Dr.  J.  Agat 


L  7.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  15 

Beet  is  OB  a  good  method,  bat  Is  somewhat  affected  bf  ctitteal  ^aestioM  M 
to  the  sequence  of  the  docaments. 

There  is  an  interesting  progression  in  the  addresses  of  St.  Paul's 

£pp. :  I,  t  ThesS.  Gal.  r^  «(C(tX»7<rig  (rait  (KKKt}(riais) ',  I,  2  Cor.  fj 
f kkX.  -f  rotff  iyiott ;  I  Cor.  Rom.  Kkrfroit  dyiots  ;  Rom.  Phil,  naa-i  nSs 
iyiots ;  £ph.  Col.  roit  dyiois  Koi  itUTTois. 

The  idea  of  the  local  Church,  as  a  unit  in  itself,  is  more  promi- 
nent in  the  earlier  Epp.;  that  of  individual  Christians  forming  part  of 
the  great  body  of  believers  (the  Church  Catholic)  is  more  prominent 
in  the  later.  And  it  would  be  natural  that  there  should  be  some 
such  progression  of  thought,  as  the  number  of  local  churches  multi- 
plied, and  as  the  Apostle  himself  came  to  see  them  in  a  larger 
perspective.  It  would  however  be  a  mistake  to  argue  at  once 
from  this  that  the  use  of  c«ucXij<ria  for  the  local  Church  necessarily 
came  first  in  order  of  time.  On  the  other  side  may  be  urged  the 
usage  of  the  O.  T.,  and  more  particularly  of  the  Pentateuch,  where 
iKtckr^cria  constantly  stands  for  the  religious  assembly  of  the  whole 
people,  as  well  as  the  saying  of  our  Lord  Himself  in  Matt.  xvi.  18. 
But  the  question  is  too  large  to  be  argued  as  a  side  issue. 

Rudolf  Sohm's  elaborate  Kirchenrecht  (Leipzig,  1893)  starts  from  the 
assumption  that  the  prior  idea  is  that  of  the  Church  as  a  whole.  But  jnst 
this  part  of  his  learned  work  has  by  no  means  met  with  general  acceptance. 

Xapis  Kol  cipi^m].  Observe  the  combination  and  deepened  re- 
ligious significance  of  the  common  Greek  salutation  xalptw^  and 
the  common  Heb.  salutation  Shalom,  '  Peace.'  x«P«  ^ind  dpfjin}  are 
both  used  in  the  full  theological  sense  :  x«P'f  =  the  favour  of  God, 
elpTjvf]  =  the  cessation  of  hostility  to  him  and  the  peace  of  mind 
which  follows  upon  it. 

There  are  four  formulae  of  greeting  in  N.  T. :  the  simple 
XO-Lpeiv  in  St.  James ;  x^-P'-'^  '^°-''  ^PWV  i^^  Epp.  Paul,  (except  i  and 
2  Tim.)  and  in  i,  2  St.  Peter;  x^P'^,  cAcos,  elp^vr}  in  the  Epistles 
of  Timothy  and  2  St.  John  ;   eXeos  Kal  elpiji'r]  koL  aydir-r]  in  St.  Jude. 

eipir]»n>).  We  have  seen  how  xap«  had  acquired  a  deeper  sense  in 
N.  T.  as  compared  with  O.  T. ;  with  cipijw;  this  process  had  taken 
place  earlier.  It  too  begins  as  a  phrase  of  social  intercotu-se, 
marking  that  stage  in  the  advance  of  civilization  at  which  the 
assumption  that  every  stranger  encountered  was  an  enemy  gave 
place  to  overtures  of  friendship  {Etpr)vj)  o-ot  Jud.  xix.  20,  &c.).  But 
the  word  soon  began  to  be  used  in  a  religious  sense  of  the  cessation 
of  the  Divine  anger  and  the  restoration  of  harmony  between  God 
and  man  (Ps.  xxix.  [xxviii.]  11  Kvpios  tiXoyqafi  t6i»  \a6v  airov  iv 
flprjvji  :  IxXXV.  [Ixxxiv.]  8  \cLkri<Tfi  elpfjvtjv  inl  top  Xmv  avrtn) :  t'iid.  lO 
Hixauxrvvj}  km  tlp^vt)  Karc0(Xi;a'ay :  cxix.  [cxviii.J  1 65  Wpiji^  fl-oXXi;  rou 
ayaniiat  t6v  pofiov  :  Is.  liii.  5  jratbtia  tlptjvrjs  ijft&v  iw  (an6v  \  Jer.  ZIV. 
13  aX^d«ai«  wak  upi\vriv  iacm  iiri  ttjs  yrjs:   Ezek.  XXXlv.  25  iiadritrofim 


l6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [I.  7. 

ry  Aovid  iiaGfjKTip  ttpfivris  [cf.  xxxvii.  a6j.  Nor  is  this  use  confined 
to  the  Canonical  Scriptures :  cf.  Enoch  v.  4  (other  reff.  in  Charles, 
ad  loc);  Jubilees  i.  15,  29;  xxii.  9;  xxxiii.  12,  30,  &c. ;  it  was  one 
of  the  functions  of  the  Messiah  to  bring  '  peace '  (Weber,  Altsyn, 
Theol.  p.  362  f.). 

The  nearest  parallel  for  the  nse  of  the  word  in  a  salntation  as  here  ia 
Dan.  iii.  98  [31];  vi.  34  (LXX) ;  iii.  98  [31];  vi.  25  (Theodot.)  «lpiJ>T;  ifA 
wkT/OwOtiT]. 

diro  6coS  irarp^s  Vjfiuf  ical  Kupiou  'ti)(rou  Xpiorou.  The  juxta- 
position of  God  as  Father  and  Christ  as  Lord  may  be  added  to  the 
proofs  already  supplied  by  w.  i,  4,  that  St.  Paul,  if  not  formally 
enunciating  a  doctrine  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  held  a  view  which 
cannot  really  be  distinguished  from  it.  The  assignment  of  the 
respective  titles  of  '  Father '  and  '  Lord '  represents  the  first  begin- 
ning of  Christological  speculation.  It  is  stated  in  precise  terms 
and  with  a  corresponding  assignment  of  appropriate  prepositions 

in  I  Cor.  viii.  6  dXX'  tjfjUv  tls  0«6r  6  narrip,  f^  ov  ra  iravra,  Kai  fifit'is  W» 
avT6v,  KOI  fis  Kvptos  'irja-ovt  XpuTT6s,  8«*  oi  ra  navra,  kelL  fjfuis  di   avTOV. 

The  opposition  in  that  passage  between  the  gods  of  the  heathen 
and  the  Christians'  God  seems  to  show  that  fjficov  =  at  least  primarily, 
'  us  Christians '  rather  than  *  us  men. 

Not  only  does  the  juxtaposition  of '  Father'  and  '  Lord  '  mark 
a  stage  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ ;  it  also  marks  an 
important  stage  in  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  It  is 
found  already  some  six  years  before  the  composition  of  Ep.  to 
Romans  at  the  time  when  St.  Paul  wrote  his  earliest  extant  Epistle 
(i  Thess.  i.  i ;  cf.  2  Thess.  i.  2),  This  shows  that  even  at  that 
date  (a.  d.  52)  the  definition  of  the  doctrine  had  begun.  It 
is  well  also  to  remember  that  although  in  this  particular  verse  of 
Ep.  to  Romans  the  form  in  which  it  appears  is  incomplete,  the 
triple  formula  concludes  an  Epistle  written  a  few  months  earlier 
(2  Cor.  xiii.  14).  There  is  nothing  more  wonderful  in  the  history 
of  human  thought  than  the  silent  and  imperceptible  way  in  which 
this  doctrine,  to  us  so  difiScult,  took  its  place  without  struggle  and 
without  controversy  among  accepted  Christian  truths. 

iraxpSs  t'lfiui'.  The  singling  out  of  this  title  must  be  an  echo  of 
its  constant  and  distinctive  use  by  our  Lord  Himself.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  was  taught  in  the  Old  Testament  (Ps. 
Ixviii.  5;  Ixxxix.  26;  Deut.  xxxii.  6;  Is.  Ixiii.  16;  Ixiv.  8;  Jer. 
xxxi.  9;  Mai.  i.  6;  ii,  10);  but  there  is  usually  some  restriction  or 
qualification — God  is  the  Father  of  Israel,  of  the  Messianic  King,  of 
a  particular  class  such  as  the  weak  and  friendless.  It  may  also  be 
said  that  the  doctrine  of  Divine  Fatherhood  is  implicitly  contained 
in  the  stress  which  is  laid  on  the  *  loving-kindness '  of  God  (e.  g.  in 
such  fundamental  passages  as  Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7  compared  with  Ps. 
dii.  13).     But  this  idea  which  lies  as  a  partially  developed  germ  in 


I.  1-7.]  THE  APOSTOLIC  SALUTATION  1 7 

the  Old  Testament  breaks  into  full  bloom  in  the  New.  It  is 
placed  by  our  Lord  Himself  in  the  fore-front  of  the  conception  of 
God.  It  takes  however  a  two-fold  ramification :  6  Trar^p  vixSav  [v/xwf, 
trov,  avT&v]  (e.  g.  twenty  times  in  St.  Matt.),  and  6  n-ai^p  fiov  [6  narfip] 
(e.  g.  twenty-three  times  in  St.  Matt.).  In  particular  this  second 
phrase  marks  the  distinction  between  the  Son  and  the  Father ;  so 
that  when  the  two  are  placed  in  juxtaposition,  as  in  the  greeting  of 
this  and  other  Epistles,  6  nanjp  is  the  natural  term  to  use.  The 
mere  fact  of  juxtaposition  suflBciently  suggests  the  varfip  tov  Kvpim 
^fiS>v  'irjcrov  Xpiarov  (which  is  expressed  in  full  in  2  Cor.  i.  3;  Eph.  i. 
3;  Col.  i.  3 ;  cf.  Rom.  xv.  6;  a  Cor.  xi.  31,  but  not  Eph.  iii.  14;  Col. 
ii.  2);  so  that  the  Apostle  widens  the  reference  by  throwing  in 
^fiav,  to  bring  out  the  connexion  between  the  source  of  *  grace  and 
peace '  and  its  recipients. 

It  is  no  doubt  true  that  irarrjp  is  occasionally  used  in  N.  T.  in  the 
more  general  sense  of  'Creator'  (James  i.  17  'Father  of  lights,' 
i.  e.  in  the  first  instance,  Creator  of  the  heavenly  bodies;  Heb.  xii.  9 
'  Father  of  spirits ' ;  cf.  Acts  xvii.  28,  but  perhaps  not  Eph.  iv.  6 
jrarijp  ndirrav,  where  nuvrav  may  be  masc).  It  is  true  also  that  A 
narfip  r«v  oX<aj»  in  this  sense  is  common  in  Philo,  and  that  similai 
phrases  occur  in  the  early  post-apostolic  writers  (e.  g.  Clem.  Rom. 
ad  Cor.  xix.  2 ;  Justin,  Apol.  i.  36,  61 ;  Tatian,  Or.  c.  Graec.  4). 
But  when  Harnack  prefers  to  give  this  interpretation  to  Pater  in 
the  earliest  creeds  {Das  Apost.  Glaubensbekenniniss,  p.  20),  tht 
immense  preponderance  of  N.  T.  usage,  and  the  certainty  that  the 
Creed  is  based  upon  that  usage  (e.  g.  in  i  Cor.  viii.  6)  seem  to  be 
decisive  against  him.  On  the  early  history  of  the  term  see  esp 
Swete,  Apost.  Creed,  p.  ao  flF. 

The  Theological  Terminology  of  Rom.  i.  1-7. 

In  looking  back  over  these  opening  verses  it  is  impossible  not  to 
be  struck  by  the  definiteness  and  maturity  of  the  theological  teach- 
ing contained  in  them.  It  is  remarkable  enough,  and  characteristic 
of  this  primitive  Christian  literature,  especially  of  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  that  a  mere  salutation  should  contain  so  much  weighty 
teaching  of  any  kind ;  but  it  is  still  more  remarkable  when  we  think 
what  that  teaching  is  and  the  early  date  at  which  it  was  penned. 
There  are  no  less  than  five  distinct  groups  of  ideas  all  expressed 
with  deliberate  emphasis  and  precision:  (i)  A  complete  set  of 
ideas  as  to  the  commission  and  authority  of  an  Apostle;  (2)  A 
complete  set  of  ideas  as  to  the  status  in  the  sight  of  God  of  a  Chris- 
tian community;  (3)  A  clear  apprehension  of  the  relation  of  the 
new  order  of  things  to  the  old;  (4)  A  clear  assertion  of  what  we 
should  call  summarily  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  which  St.  Paul  re- 
garded both  in  the  light  of  its  relation  to  the  expectations  of  his 

c 


1 8  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [L  8-16 

countrymen,  and  also  in  its  transcendental  reality,  as  revealed  by  oi 
"nferred  from  the  words  and  acts  of  Christ  Himself;  (5)  A  some- 
what advanced  stage  in  the  discrimination  of  distinct  Persons  in 
the  Godhead.  We  observe  too  how  St.  Paul  connects  together 
these  groups  of  ideas,  and  sees  in  them  so  many  parts  of  a  vast 
Divine  plan  which  covers  the  whole  of  human  history,  and  indeed 
stretches  back  beyond  its  beginning.  The  Apostle  has  to  the  full 
that  sense  which  is  so  impressive  in  the  Hebrew  prophets  that  he 
himself  is  only  an  instrument,  the  place  and  function  of  which  are 
clearly  foreseen,  for  the  accomplishment  of  God's  gracious  pur- 
poses (compare  e.  g.  Jer.  i.  5  and  Gal.  i.  15).  These  purposes  are 
working  themselves  out,  and  the  Roman  Christians  come  within 
their  range. 

When  we  come  to  examine  particular  expressions  we  find  that 
a  large  proportion  of  them  are  drawn  from  the  O.  T.  In  some 
cases  an  idea  which  has  been  hitherto  fluid  is  sharply  formulated 
((cXijTor,  acpcopitTnivoi) ;  in  Other  cases  an  old  phrase  has  been 
adopted  with  comparatively  little  modification  {vTrip  roC  ovofiarot 
avTov,  and  perhaps  flpn*^) ;    in   others  the   transference   involves 

a    larger    modification    [jboiXos    *lr)aov    Xptirrov,    x^P'^>    kXtitoi    &yuu, 

Kvpios,  Qfos  irarrjp) ;  in  Others  again  we  have  a  term  which  has  ac- 
quired a  significance  since  the  close  of  the  O.  T.  which  Christianity 

appropriates  {^enayyfXia  ^TTpofntfyyeiKaToj,  ypa(j)ai  aytai,  dvd(rra(ris  ytKpiHv, 

ayioi) ;  in  yet  others  we  have  a  new  coinage  (dn-ooroXor,  tiayyeXiov), 
which  however  in  these  instances  is  due,  not  to  St.  Paul  or  the 
other  Apostles,  but  to  Christ  Himself. 


ST.  PAUIi  AND  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 

I.  8-15.  God  knows  hatv  long  I  have  desired  to  see  you 
— a  hope  which  I  trust  may  at  last  be  accomplished — and 
to  deliver  to  you.  as  to  the  rest  of  the  Gentile  worlds  my 
message  of  salvation. 

'In  writing  to  you  I  must  first  offer  my  humble  thanks  to 
God,  through  Him  Who  as  High  Priest  presents  all  our  prayers 
and  praises,  for  the  world-wide  fame  which  as  a  united  Church  you 
bear  for  your  earnest  Christianity.  •  If  witness  were  needed  to 
show  how  deep  is  my  interest  in  you,  I  might  appeal  to  God  Himself 
Who  hears  that  constant  ritual  of  prayer  which  my  spirit  addresses 
to  Him  in  my  work  of  preaching  the  glad  tidings  of  His  Son. 
*•  He  knows  how  unceasingly  your  Church  is  upon  my  lips,  and  how 
every  time  I  kneel  in  prayer  it  is  my  petition,  that  at  some  near  day 


I.  •.]  ST.   PAUL  AND  THE   ROMAN   CHURCH  1 9 

I  may  at  last,  in  the  course  which  God's  Will  marks  out  for  me, 
really  have  my  way  made  clear  to  visit  you.  "  For  I  have  a  great 
desire  to  see  you  and  to  impart  to  you  some  of  those  many  gifts 
(of  instruction,  comfort,  edification  and  the  like)  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  been  pleased  to  bestow  upon  me,  and  so  to  strengthen 
your  Christian  character.  "I  do  not  mean  that  I  am  above 
receiving  or  that  you  have  nothing  to  bestow, — ^far  from  it, — but 
that  I  myself  may  be  cheered  by  my  intercourse  with  you  (fV  vfilv), 
or  that  we  may  be  mutually  cheered  by  each  other's  faith,  I  by 
yours  and  you  by  mine.  "  I  should  be  sorry  for  you  to  suppose 
that  this  is  a  new  resolve  on  my  part.  The  fact  is  that  I  often 
intended  to  visit  you — an  intention  until  now  as  often  frustrated 
— in  the  hope  of  reaping  some  spiritual  harvest  from  my  labours 
among  you,  as  in  the  rest  of  the  Gentile  world,  "There  is  no 
limit  to  this  duty  of  mine  to  preach  the  Gospel.  To  all  without 
distinction  whether  of  language  or  of  culture,  I  must  discharge 
the  debt  which  Christ  has  laid  upon  me.  "  Hence,  so  far  as  the 
decision  rests  with  me,  I  am  bent  on  delivering  the  message  of 
salvation  to  you  too  at  Rome. 

8.  8id.  Agere  autem  Deo  gratiaSy  hoc  est  sacrificium  laudis 
offerre:  et  ideo  addii  per  Jesum  Christum;  velut  per  Pontificem 
magnum  Orig. 

^  irums  ojiui'.  For  a  further  discussion  of  this  word  see  below 
on  ver.  17.  Here  it  is  practically  equivalent  to  'your  Christianity,' 
the  distinctive  act  which  makes  a  man  a  Christian  carrying  with  it 
the  direct  consequences  of  that  act  upon  the  character.  Much 
confusion  of  thought  would  be  saved  if  wherever  *  faith '  was 
mentioned  the  question  were  always  consciously  asked.  Who  or 
what  is  its  object?  It  is  extremely  rare  for  faith  to  be  used  in 
the  N.  T.  as  a  mere  abstraction  without  a  determinate  object  In 
this  Epistle  '  faith '  is  nearly  always  '  faith  in  Christ.'  The  object 
is  expressed  in  iii.  22,  26  but  is  left  to  be  understood  elsewhere. 
In  the  case  of  Abraham  '  faith '  is  not  so  much  '  faith  in  God '  ag 
'  faith  in  the  promises  of  God,'  which  promises  are  precisely  those 
which  are  fulfilled  in  Christianity.  Or  it  would  perhaps  be  more 
strictly  true  to  say  that  the  immediate  object  of  faith  is  in  most 
cases  Christ  or  the  promises  which  pointed  to  Christ.  At  the  same 
time  there  is  always  in  the  background  the  Supreme  Author  of 
that  whole  '  economy '  of  which  the  Incarnation  of  Christ  formed 
a  part.  Thus  it  is  God  Who  justifies  though  the  moving  cause  of 
justification  is  usually  defined  as  '  faith  in  Christ'  And  inasmuch 
as  it  is  He  Who  both  promised  that  Christ  should  come  and  also 


■O  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  {I.  8-10. 

Himself  brought  about  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise,  even  justifying 
•kith  may  be  described  as  '  faith  in  God.'     The  most  conspicuous 

example  of  this  is  ch.  iv.  5  T<p  8«  ^xi^  ipya^Ofiiva,  itun-fvovri  di  ciri  tA» 
itKaioiivra  t6p  d<re/3^,  \oyi(eTai  f)  nloTis  avrov  ds  8iKaio<riivrjv. 

0.  Xarpeuu  connected  with  Xdrpis, '  hired  servant/  and  Xarpop,  'hire': 
(i)  already  in  classical  Gk.  applied  to  the  service  of  a  higher  power 
{8ia  r^y  roO  6(ov  Xarptiav  Plato,  Apol.  236);  (ii)  in  LXX  always  of 
the  service  either  of  the  true  God  or  of  heathen  divinities.  Hence 
Augustine :  Aarpda  .  .  .  aui  semper  aut  tam  frequenter  ut  fere 
temper,  ea  dicitur  servitus  quae  pertinet  ad  colendum  Deum  (Trench, 
Syn.  p.  i2of.). 

harptitiv  is  at  once  somewhat  wider  and  somewhat  narrower  In  meaning 
than  Xnrovpydv :  (i)  it  is  used  only  (or  almost  wholly)  of  the  service  of  God 
where  A«iTov/37*ri'  {KeirovpySs)  is  nsed  also  of  the  service  of  men  (Josh.  i.  I 
f.l.;  I  Kings  i.  4,  xix.  ai ;  2  Kings  iv.  43,  vi.  15,  &c.)  ;  (ii)  but  on  the  othei 
hand  it  is  nsed  of  the  service  both  of  priest  and  people,  esp.  of  the  service 
fendered  to  Jahveh  by  the  whole  race  of  Israel  (Acts  xxvi.  7  rd  5ai5ti(d(pv\o> 
iy  iieT«vfi(}  Karpfvov,  of.  Rom.  ix.  4) ;  \tiTovprffiv  is  appropriated  to  the 
ministrations  of  priests  and  Levites  (Heb.  x.  11,  &c.).  Where  XftrovpyeTv 
(\uTovpy6i)  is  not  strictly  in  this  sense,  there  is  yet  more  or  less  conscioos 
reference  to  it  (e.  g.  in  Rom.  xiii.  6  and  esp.  xv.  16). 

<r  Ty  w€6\ian  |*oo.  The  wvtvua  is  the  organ  of  service;  the 
tvayyfXuiv  {=  to  Krjpvyfia  ToiJ  fvayycAt'ov)  the  sphere  in  which  the 
service  is  rendered. 

iiri  tSjv  TipoaevxStv  ^o« :  •  a/  my  prayers,'  at  all  my  times  of  prayer 
(cf.  I  Thess.  i.  a  ;  Eph.  i.  16 ;  Philem.  4). 

10.  slircos.    On  the  eonstrnction  see  Barton,  Affiods  and  Tentet,  f  376. 

i58t|  iroT^:  a  difficult  expression  to  render  in  English;  'now  at 
length'  (AV.  and  RV.)  omits  Trore,  just  as  'in  ony  maner  sumtyme* 
(Wic.)  omits  ^Si; ;  '  sometime  at  the  length '  (Rhem.)  is  more  accu- 
rate, '  some  near  day  at  last.'  In  contrast  with  viiv  (which  denotes 
present  time  simply)  ^8r)  denotes  the  present  or  near  future  in 
relation  to  the  process  by  which  it  has  been  reached,  and  with 
a  certain  suggestion  of  surprise  6r  relief  that  it  has  been  reached  so 
soon  as  it  has.  So  here  rjdr)  =  '  now,  after  all  this  waiting ' :  fror« 
makes  the  moment  more  indefinite.  On  ^Si;  see  Baumlein,  Gritck. 
ParUkeln,^.  138  flf. 

€fio8w6r)aonai.  The  word  has  usually  dropped  the  idea  of  686t 
and  means  '  to  be  prospered '  in  any  way  (e.  g.  i  Cor.  xvi.  3  5  n 
av  (vobuiToi,  where  it  is  used  of  profus  gained  in  trade;  similarly  in 
LXX  and  Test.  XI L  Pair,  Jud.  i,  Gad  7) ;  and  so  here  Mey.  Gif. 
RV.,  &c.  It  does  not,  however,  follow  that  because  a  metaphor  is 
often  dropped,  it  may  not  be  recalled  where  it  is  directly  suggested 
by  the  context.  We  are  thus  tempted  to  render  with  the  earlier 
English  Versions  and  Vulg.  prosperum  iter  habeam  (*  I  have 
t  spedi  wey  *  Wic). 


I.  10-16.]  ST.  PAUL  AND  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH       21 

ev  T(S  ^eXT^/Aari  tov  ®eov.  St.  Paul  has  a  special  reason  for 
laying  stress  on  the  fact  that  all  his  movements  are  in  the  hands 
of  God.  He  has  a  strong  sense  of  the  risks  which  he  incurs  in 
going  up  to  Jerusalem  (Rom.  xv.  30  f.),  and  he  is  very  doubtfu' 
whether  anything  that  he  intends  will  be  accomplished  (Hort, 
J?(?m.  and  Eph.  p.  42  fif.). 

^KQ^tv  :  probably  for  fiffre  iAdeiv  (Burton,  §  371  c). 

11.  ^miroOw:  «ri-  marks  the  direction  of  the  desire,  'to  you- 
ward ' ;  thus  by  laying  stress  on  the  personal  object  of  the  verb  it 
rather  strengthens  its  emotional  character. 

\dpi<Tii,a  iTfeufiaTiK^K.  St.  Paul  has  in  his  mind  the  kind  of  gifts 
— partly  what  we  should  call  natural  and  partly  transcending  the 
ordinary  workings  of  nature — described  in  i  Cor.  xii-xiv ;  Rom. 
xii.  6  ff.  Some,  probably  most,  of  these  gifts  he  possessed  in  an 
eminent  degree  himself  (i  Cor.  xir.  i8),  and  he  was  assured  that 
when  he  came  to  Rome  he  would  be  able  to  give  the  Christians 
there  the  fullest  benefit  of  them  (Rom.  xv.  29  olda  8e  on  ipx°i^*^°^ 

rrp6s  vftas  ev  n\r]pa)fxaTi   fv\oyias   Xpiarov  iXevaopai),      His    waS    COn- 

spicuously  a  case  which  came  under  the  descripdon  of  John  vii.  38 
*  He  that  believeth  on  Me,  as  the  scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his 
belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water,'  i.  e.  the  behever  in  Christ 
should  himself  become  a  centre  and  abounding  source  of  spiritual 
influence  and  blessing  to  others. 

<U  ri  <m)pt.xO'f|vav :  (It  t6  with  Infin.  expressing  purpose  'is  employed 
with  special  frequency  by  Paul,  bat  occnrs  also  in  Heb.  i  Pet  and  Jas.' 
(Barton,  §  409). 

12.  oru(iiropaiiXT)0t]»'oi :  the  subject  is  «V«,  which,  from  the  (tw  in 
orvunapaxK.  and  (v  vp.iv,  is  treated  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  as 
equivalent  to  ^p.tis.  We  note  of  course  the  delicacy  with  which  the 
Apostle  suddenly  checks  himself  in  the  expression  of  his  desire  to 
impart  from  his  own  fulness  to  the  Roman  Christians :  he  will  not 
assume  any  airs  of  superiority,  but  meets  them  frankly  upon  their 
own  level :  if  he  has  anything  to  confer  upon  them  they  in  turn 
will  confer  an  equivalent  upon  him. 

13.  oil  9i\ia :  odit  otofuu  (D*)  G,  «Mi  arbitrtr  d  e  g  Ambrstr. ;  an  instance 

of  Western  paraphrase. 

oxw,  'I  ma,y get.' 

14.  'EXXtjai  re  ital  ^ap^(ipolf :  a  resolution  mto  its  parts  of  vdtmt 
ra  fdpT],  according  to  (i)  divisions  of  language,  (ii)  degrees  of  culture. 

16.  TO  Kar  ifii.  It  is  perhaps  best,  with  Gif.  Va.  Mou.,  to  take 
t6  kot  ffif  as  subject,  iTp6Bvp.ov  as  predicate  :  so  g  Vulg.  quod  in  me 
promtum  est.  In  that  case  to  kot  e>«  will  =  '  I,  so  far  as  it  rests 
with  me,'  i.  e.  '  under  God ' — L'homme  propose,  Dieu  dispose ;  cf.  » 
r<p  BeXtjitari  tov  Qfoi  above.     Differently  Orig.-lat.  (Rufinus)  who 


IS  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [I.  16,  17. 

makes  tA  nor'  «/w'  adverbial,  quod  in  mt  est  promlus  sum :  so  too 
d  e  Ambrstr.  The  objection  to  thi>  is  that  St.  Paul  would  have 
written  irpoBvfios  flfu.  Mey.  Lips,  and  others  take  t6  tear  in*  irp66v- 
ftov  together  as  subject  of  [eoriv]  fvayytXiaaadat,  '  hence  the  eager- 
ness on  my  part  (is)  to  preach.'  In  Eph.  vi.  ai ;  Phil.  i.  la;  CoL 
iv.  7  Tu  Kar'  ({It  s=  *  my  affairs.* 


THESIS  or  THE  EPISTLE:    THE  BIGHTEOUSNESS 
OF  GOD  BY  FAITH. 

I.  16,  17.     That  message^  humble  as  it  may  seem,  casts 

a  new  light  on  the  righteousness  of  God:  for  it  tells  how 
His  righteousness  flows  forth  and  embraces  man,  when  it  is 
met  by  Faith,  or  loyal  adhesion  to  Christ. 

"  Even  there,  in  the  imperial  city  itself,  I  am  not  ashamed  of  my 
message,  repellent  and  humiliating  as  some  of  its  features  may 
seem.  For  it  is  a  mighty  agency,  set  in  motion  by  God  Himself, 
and  sweeping  on  with  it  towards  the  haven  of  Messianic  security 
every  believer — first  in  order  of  precedence  the  Jew,  and  after  him 
the  Gentile.  "  Do  you  ask  how  this  agency  works  and  in  what  it 
consists  ?  It  is  a  revelation  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  manifested 
in  a  new  method  by.  which  righteousness  is  acquired  by  man, — 
a  method,  the  secret  of  which  is  Faith,  or  ardent  loyalty  to  Jesus 
as  Messiah  and  Lord ;  which  Faith  is  every  day  both  widening  its 
circles  and  deepening  its  hold.  It  was  such  an  attitude  as  this 
which  the  prophet  Habakkuk  meant  when,  in  view  of  the  desolating 
Chaldaean  invasion,  he  wrote :  '  The  righteous  man  shall  save  his 
life  by  his  faith,  or  loyalty  to  Jehovah,  while  his  proud  oppressors 
perish.' 

16.  k-Koxayvvo^ox.  St.  Paul  was  well  aware  that  his  Gospel  was 
'  unto  Jews  a  stumbling-block  and  unto  Gentiles  foolishness ' 
(i  Cor.  i,  23).  How  could  it  be  otherwise,  as  Chrysostom  says,  he 
was  about  to  preach  of  One  who  '  passed  for  the  son  of  a  carpenter, 
brought  up  in  Judaea,  in  the  house  of  a  poor  woman  .  .  .  and  who 
died  like  a  criminal  in  the  company  of  robbers  ?  '  It  hardly  needed 
the  contrast  of  imperial  Rome  to  emphasize  this.  On  the  attraction 
which  Rome  had  for  St.  Paul  see  the  Introduction,  §  i ;  also  Hicks 
in  Studia  Biblica,  iv.  11. 

We  have  an  instance  here  of  a  corrnption  coming  into  the  Greek  te«t 
throogb  the  Latin :    kmvcx-  <ir<  •va-ffiKiw  G,  trubesco  super  evangelium  g, 


I.  16.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF   GOD   BY   FAITH  43 

con/undor  de  evangelic  Aug.  The  Latin  renderings  need  not  imply  any 
▼arious  reading.  The  barbarism  in  G,  which  it  will  be  remembered  has  an 
interlinear  version,  arose  from  the  attempt  to  find  a  Greek  equivalent  for 
every  word  in  the  Latin.  This  is  only  mentioned  as  a  clear  case  of  a  kind  of 
corruption  which  doubtless  operated  elsewhere,  as  notably  in  Cod.  Beiae. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  readings  of  this  kind  are  necessarily  quite 
late. 

SJyafiis  is  the  word  properly  used  of  the  manifestations  of  Divine 
power.  Strictly  indeed  bvvafui  is  the  inherent  attribute  or  faculty, 
fvfpytia  is  the  attribute  or  faculty  in  operation.  But  the  two  words 
are  closely  allied  to  each  other  and  8Cvafxis  is  so  often  used  for 
exerted  power,  especially  Divine  superhuman  power,  that  it  practi- 
cally covers  ivipyaa.  St.  Paul  might  quite  well  have  written 
(vepyfia  here,  but  the  choice  of  hvva^n  throws  the  stress  rather  more 
on  the  source  than  on  the  process.  The  word  hivaiia  in  a  context 
like  this  is  one  of  those  to  which  modern  associations  seem  to  give 
a  greater  fulness  and  vividness  of  meaning.  We  shall  not  do  wrong 
if  we  think  of  the  Gospel  as  a  '  force '  in  the  same  kind  of  sense  as 
that  in  which  science  has  revealed  to  us  the  great '  forces '  of  nature. 
It  is  a  principle  operating  on  a  vast  and  continually  enlarging  scale, 
and  taking  effect  in  a  countless  number  of  individuals.  This  con- 
ception only  differs  from  the  scientific  conception  of  a  force  like 
'  heat'  or  ' electricity '  in  that  whereas  the  man  of  science  is  too  apt 
to  abstract  his  conception  of  force  from  its  origin,  St.  Paul  con- 
ceives of  it  as  essentially  a  mode  of  personal  activity  ;  the  Gospel 
has  all  God's  Omnipotence  behind  it.  As  such  it  is  before  all 
things  a  real  force,  not  a  sham  force  like  so  many  which  the 
Apostle  saw  around  him ;  its  true  nature  might  be  misunderstood, 
but  that  did  not  make  it  any  less  powerful :  6  Xoyoj  yhp  6  rov  aravpov 

rdis  ptv  anoXKvixfvoii  nwpia  cVrt,  rols  8(  (Tco^Ofifvois  Tjplv  Swafus  Qtov  c'oTi 

I  Cor.  i.  1 8  ;  cf.  i  Cor.  ii.  4,  iv.  20 ;  i  Thess.  i.  5. 

CIS  (TUTr\piav.  The  fundamental  idea  contained  in  a-arrfpia  is  the 
removal  of  dangers  menacing  to  life  and  the  consequent  placing 
of  life  in  conditions  favourable  to  free  and  healthy  expansion. 
Hence,  as  we  might  expect,  there  is  a  natural  progression  corre- 
sponding to  the  growth  in  the  conception  of  life  and  of  the  dangers 
by  which  it  is  threatened,  (i)  In  the  earlier  books  of  the  O.  T. 
(TOT.  is  simply  deliverance  from  physical  peril  (Jud.  xv.  18 ;  i  Sam. 
xi.  9, 13,  &c.).  (ii)  But  the  word  has  more  and  more  a  tendency 
to  be  appropriated  to  the  great  deliverances  of  the  nation  (e.  g.  Ex. 
xiv.  13,  XV.  2,  the  Passage  of  the  Red  Sea;  Is.  xlv.  17,  xlvi.  13,  lii. 
lo,  &c.,  the  Return  from  Exile),  (iii)  Thus  by  a  natural  transition 
it  is  associated  with  the  Messianic  deliverance ;  and  that  both  (a)  in 
the  lower  forms  of  the  Jewish  Messianic  expectation  (Ps.  So/,  x. 
9;  xii.  7;  cf.  Test. XII. Pair.  Sym.  7;  Jud.  22;  Benj.9,  10  [the  form 
used  in  all  these  passages  is  o-wnjpioi'j ;  Luke  i.  69,  71,  77),  and  (^) 
tn  the  higher  form  of  the  Christian  hope  (Acts  iv.  aa;  xiii.  a6,  &c.). 


34  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  (I.  16,  17. 

In  this  latter  sense  traTtjpia  covers  the  whole  range  oi  the  Messianic 
deliverance,  both  in  its  negative  aspect  as  a  rescuing  from  the 
Wrath  under  which  the  whole  world  is  lying  (ver.  i8  ff.)  and  in  its 
positive  aspect  as  the  imparting  of  '  eternal  life  '  (Mark  x.  30  D ; 
John  iii.  15,  16,  &c.).  Both  these  sides  are  already  combined  in 
the  earliest  extant  Epistle  (ot*  ovk  lOtTo  rjyMs  6  e«oj  tls  opy^v,  dXX'  th 

ntpiiroiritTiv  (TcdTTjplas  dia  tov  Kvpiov  fjpmv  'irjaoi  Xpiarrou,  tow  dvodav6pTOS 
vnfp  ^/tcoi/,  tea  tiTt  ypifyopwptv  ctrt  Ka6tid<afUif  ifta  viiP  aiiT^  (tjaaptp 
I  Thess.  V.  9,  10). 

irpdiTOf;  om.  BGg,  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  Lachmann  Treg.  WH. 
bracket,  because  of  the  combination  of  B  with  Western  authorities ; 
but  they  do  no  more  than  bracket  because  in  Epp.  Paul.  B  has  a 
slight  Western  element,  to  which  this  particular  reading  may  be- 
long. In  that  case  it  would  rest  entirely  upon  Western  authority. 
Marcion  appears  to  have  omitted  tt/dwtov  as  well  as  the  quotation 
from  Habakkuk,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  omission  in  this  small 
group  of  Western  MSS.  may  be  due  to  his  influence.  * 

For  the  precedence  assigned  to  the  Jew  comp.  Rom.  iii.  i,  ix.  i  flF., 
xi.  16  ff.,  XV.  9 ;  also  Matt.  xv.  94;  Jo.  iv.  aa  ;  Acts  xiii.  46.  The 
point  is  important  in  view  of  Baur  and  his  followers  who  exaggerate 
the  opposition  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Jews.  He  defends  himself  and 
his  converts  from  their  attacks ;  but  he  fully  concedes  the  priority  of 
their  claim  and  he  is  most  anxious  to  conciliate  them  (Rom.  xv.  31 ; 
cf.  ix.  I  flf.,  X.  I  ff.;  XV.  8,  &c.:  see  also  Introduction  §  4). 

17.  SiKoioaunf)  0eoO.  For  some  time  past  it  has  seemed  to 
be  almost  an  accepted  exegetical  tradition  that  the  '  righteous- 
ness of  God  *  means  here  '  a  righteousness  of  which  God  is  the 
author  and  man  the  recipient,'  a  righteousness  not  so  much  '  0/ 
God'  as  '/rom  God,'  i.e.  a  state  or  condition  of  righteousness 
bestowed  by  God  upon  man.  But  quite  recently  two  protests 
have  been  raised  against  this  view,  both  English  and  both,  as 
it  happens,  associated  with  the  University  of  Durham,  one  by 
Dr.  Barmby  in  the  Pulpit  Commentary  on  Romans,  and  the  other 
by  Dr.  A.  Robertson  in  The  Thinker  for  Nov.  1893  *;  comp.  also  a 
concise  note  by  Dr.  T.  K.  Abbott  adloc.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  protest  is  justified ;  not  so  much  that  the  current  view  is  ' 
wrong  as  that  it  is  partial  and  incomplete. 

The  '  righteousness  of  God '  is  a  great  and  comprehensive  idea  v 
which  embraces  in  its  range  both  God  and  man ;  and  in  this 
fundamental  passage  of  the  Epistle  neither  side  must  be  lost  sight  " 
of.  (i)  In  proof  that  the  righteousness  intended  here  is  primarily 
'the  righteousness  of  God  Himself  it  may  be  urged:  (i)  that  this 
is  consistently  the  sense  of  the  righteousness  of  God  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  more  particularly  in  passages  closely  resembling  the 
present,  such  as  Ps.    xcviiL    [xcvii.j    a,   '  The   Lord  hath   made 

*  The  point  ii,  however,  bejpiming  to  Attrmct  touM  attention  in  Geimany. 


L  17.]  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY    FAITH  35 

known  His  salvation :  His  righteousness  hath  He  revialed  (a7r<»cd- 
Xv^tv)  in  the  sight  of  the  nations,'  which  contains  the  three  key- 
words of  the  verse  before  us ;  (ii)  that  elsewhere  in  the  Epistle 
d»K.  e«oC=' the  righteousness  of  God  Himself  (several  of  the 
passages,  e.g.  iii.  21,  22,  x.  3,  have  the  same  ambiguity  as  the 
text,  but  iii.  5,  25,  a6  are  quite  clear) ;  (iii)  that  the  marked 
antithesis  atroKaKxmTtTM  yap  opyif  Q(ov  in  ver.  18  compared  with 
iiKawavvq  yap  Qtov  dnoKoKvnTtTfu  in  ver.  1 7  requires  that  the  gen. 
eeoC  shall  be  taken  in  the  same  sense  in  both  places.  These  are 
arguments  too  strong  to  be  resisted. 

(2)  But  at  the  same  time  those  which  go  to  prove  that  5tK.  Qfov  is 
a  gift  of  righteousness  bestowed  upon  man  are  hardly  less  con- 
vincing, (i)  The  righteousness  in  question  is  described  as  being 
revealed  «  maTemi  tis  TiiaTw ;  and  in  the  parallel  passage  iii.  22  it  is 

qualified  as  dw.  ©eoC  hia  nltrrtms  'Ij^o-oC  XptoroO  tis  iravras  roiis  nKTrevov 

ras,  where  its  relation  to  the  human  recipient  is  quite  unmistak- 
able, (ii)  This  relation  is  further  confirmed  by  the  quotation  from 
Habakkuk  where  the  epithet  diVatos  is  applied  not  to  God  but  to 
man.     Observe  the  logical  connexion  of  the  two  clauses,  ^iKaioa-vvt} 

yap  Qeov  dnoKaXviTTfTai  ,  .  .  KaBas  ytypa  Ttrai,  'O  fie  b'lKaios  fK  nuTTfcos 

CT)<T€Tai.  (iii)  Lastly,  in  the  parallel  Phil.  iii.  9  the  thought  of  the 
Apostle  is  made  quite  explicit :  n^  e^'*"'  'M"  Stfcatoarvvjji'  rrjv  «  vo^iov, 

ak^a  Tffv  din  jrtOTfwf  XpioroO,  ttjv  ik  ©eov  8iKaioavvr)v  «ri  Tjj  itIitt fi.     The 

insertion  of  the  preposition  eV  transfers  the  righteousness  from 
God  to  man,  or  we  may  say  traces  the  process  of  extension  by 
which  it  passes  from  its  source  to  its  object. 

For  (3)  the  very  cogency  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides  is 
enough  to  show  that  the  two  views  which  we  have  set  over  against 
each  other  are  not  mutually  exclusive  but  rather  inclusive.  The 
righteousness  of  which  the  Apostle  is  speaking  not  only  proceeds 
from  God  but  is  the  righteousness  of  God  Himself:  it  is  this,  how- 
ever, not  as  inherent  in  the  Divine  Essence  but  as  going  forth  and 
embracing  the  personalities  of  men.  It  is  righteousness  active  and 
energizing;  the  righteousness  of  the  Divine  Will  as  it  were  pro- 
jected and  enclosing  and  gathering  into  itseif  ki^inix.  vrl'Js.  St.  Paul 
fixes  this  sense  upon  it  in  another  of  the  great  key-verses  of  the 

Epistle,  ch.  iii.  26  tis  rotlvai  avrbv  BiKaiov  Kal  SiKaiovvra  t6v  tK  niaTecos 

'Ijjo-ov.  The  second  half  of  this  clause  is  in  no  way  opposed  to  the 
first,  but  follows  from  it  by  natural  and  inevitable  sequence :  God 
attributes  righteousness  to  the  behever  because  He  is  Himself 
righteous.  The  whole  scheme  of  things  by  which  He  gathers  to 
Himself  a  righteous  people  is  the  direct  and  spontaneous  expression 
of  His  own  inherent  righteousness  :  a  necessity  of  His  own  Nature 
impels  Him  to  make  them  like  Himself.  The  story  how  He  has^ 
done  so  is  the  burden  of  the  '  Gospel.'  For  a  fuller  developmeul 
of  the  idea  contained  in  '  the  righteousness  of  God'  see  below, 


a6  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [I.  17 

in  -iri<rrca>«     This  root-conception  with  St.  Paul  means  in  the 

first  instance  simply  the  acceptance  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  Messiah 
and  Son  of  God  ;  the  affirmation  of  that  primitive  Christian  Creed 
which  we  have  already  had  sketched  in  w.  3,  4.  It  is  the  '  Yes '  of 
the  soul  when  the  central  proposition  of  Christianity  is  presented  to 
it.  We  hardly  need  more  than  this  one  fact,  thus  barely  stated,  to 
explain  why  it  was  that  St.  Paul  attached  such  immense  importance 
to  it.  It  is  so  characteristic  of  his  habits  of  mind  to  go  to  the  root 
of  things,  that  we  cannot  be  surprised  at  his  taking  for  the  centre  of 
his  system  a  principle  which  is  only  less  prominent  in  other  writers 
because  they  are  content,  if  we  may  say  so,  to  take  their  section  of 
doctrine  lower  down  the  line  and  to  rest  in  secondary  causes  instead 
of  tracing  them  up  to  primary.  Two  influences  in  particular  seem 
to  have  impelled  the  eager  mind  of  St.  Paul  to  his  more  penetrative 
view.  One  was  his  own  experience.  He  dated  all  his  own  spiri- 
tual triumphs  from  the  single  moment  of  his  vision  on  the  road  to 
Damascus.  Not  that  they  were  all  actually  won  there,  but  they 
were  all  potentially  won.  That  was  the  moment  at  which  he  was 
as  a  brand  plucked  from  the  burning :  anything  else  that  came  to 
him  later  followed  in  due  sequence  as  the  direct  and  inevitable  out- 
come of  the  change  that  was  then  wrought  in  him.  It  was  then 
that  there  flashed  upon  him  the  conviction  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
whom  he  had  persecuted  as  a  pretender  and  blasphemer,  was  really 
exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  and  really  charged  with  infinite 
gifts  and  blessings  for  men.  The  conviction  then  decisively  won 
sank  into  his  soul,  and  became  the  master-key  which  he  applied  to 
the  solution  of  all  problems  and  all  struggles  ever  afterwards. 

But  St.  Paul  was  a  Jew,  an  ardent  Jew,  a  Pharisee,  who  had 
spent  his  whole  life  before  his  conversion  in  the  study  of  the  Old 
Testament.  And  it  was  therefore  natural  to  him,  as  soon  as  he 
began  to  reflect  on  this  experience  of  his  that  he  should  go  back  to 
his  Bible,  and  seek  there  for  the  interpretation  of  it  When  he 
did  so  two  passages  seemed  to  him  to  stand  out  above  all  others. 
The  words  n-iWtf,  ni<TTev(o  are  not  very  common  in  the  LXX,  but 
they  occurred  in  connexion  with  two  events  which  were  as  much 
turning-points  in  the  history  of  Israel  as  the  embracing  of  Chris- 
tianity had  been  a  turning-point  for  himself.  The  Jews  were  in 
the  habit  of  speculating  about  Abraham's  faith,  which  was  his 
response  to  the  promise  made  to  him.  The  leading  text  which 
dealt  with  this  was  Gen.  xv.  6 :  and  there  it  was  distinctly  laid 
down  that  this  faith  of  Abraham's  had  consequences  beyond  itself : 
another  primary  term  was  connected  with  it :  '  Abraham  believed 
God  anil  it  (his  belief)  was  reckoned  unio  him  for  righteousness.' 
Again  just  before  the  beginning  of  the  great  Chaldaean  or  Baby- 
lonian invasion,  which  was  to  take  away  their  '  place  and  nation' 
from  the  Jews  but  which  was  at  the  same  time  to  purify  them  in 


I.  17.J  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF   GOD  BY  FAITH  17 

the  furnace  of  afHiction,  the  Prophet  Habakkuk  had  announced  that 
one  class  of  persons  should  be  exempted  on  the  ground  of  this 
very  quality,  *  faith.'  '  The  just  or  righteous  man  shall  live  by 
faith.'  Here  once  more  faith  was  brought  into  direct  connexion 
with  righteousness.  When  therefore  St.  Paul  began  to  interrogate 
his  own  experience  and  to  ask  why  it  was  that  since  his  conversion, 
i.  e.  since  his  acceptance  of  Jesus  as  Messiah  and  Lord,  it  had 
become  so  much  easier  for  him  to  do  right  than  it  had  been  before ; 
and  when  he  also  brought  into  the  account  the  conclusion,  to  which 
the  same  conversion  had  led  him,  as  to  the  significance  of  the  Life 
and  Death  of  Jesus  for  the  whole  Church  or  body  of  believers  ;  what 
could  lie  nearer  at  hand  than  that  he  should  associate  faith  and 
righteousness  together,  and  associate  them  in  the  way  of  referring 
all  that  made  the  condition  of  righteousness  so  much  more  possible 
under  Christianity  than  it  had  been  under  Judaism,  objectively  to 
the  work  of  the  Messiah,  and  subjectively  to  the  appropriation  of 
that  work  by  the  believer  in  the  assent  which  he  gave  to  the  one 
proposition  which  expressed  its  value  ? 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  more  than  one  element  in  this  con- 
ception which  has  to  be  kept  distinct.  As  we  advance  further  in 
the  Epistle,  and  more  particularly  when  we  come  to  the  great 
passage  iii.  21-26,  we  shall  become  aware  that  St.  Paul  attached  to 
the  Death  of  Christ  what  we  may  call  a  sacrificial  efficacy.  He 
regarded  it  as  summing  up  under  the  New  Covenant  all  the  func- 
tions that  the  Mosaic  Sacrifices  had  discharged  under  the  Old.  As 
they  had  the  effect,  as  far  as  anything  outward  could  have  the 
effect,  of  placing  the  worshipper  in  a  position  of  fitness  for  ap- 
proach to  God ;  so  once  for  all  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  had  placed 
the  Christian  worshipper  in  this  position.  That  was  a  fact  objec- 
tive and  external  to  himself  of  which  the  Chrisdan  had  the  benefit 
simply  by  being  a  Christian ;  in  other  words  by  the  sole  act  of 
faith.  If  besides  this  he  also  found  by  experience  that  in  following 
with  his  eye  in  loyal  obedience  (like  the  author  of  Ps.  cxxiii)  his 
Master  Christ  the  restraint  of  selfishness  and  passion  became  far 
easier  for  him  than  it  had  been,  that  was  indeed  a  different  matter ; 
but  that  too  was  uUimately  referable  to  the  same  cause;  it  too 
dated  from  the  same  moment,  the  moment  of  the  acceptance  of 
Christ.  And  although  in  this  case  more  might  be  said  to  be  done 
by  the  man  himself,  yet  even  there  Christ  was  the  true  source  of 
strength  and  inspiraticn ;  and  the  more  reliance  was  placed  on  this 
strength  and  inspiration  the  more  effective  it  became ;  so  much  so 
that  St.  Paul  glories  in  his  infirmities  because  they  threw  him  back 
upon  Christ,  so  that  when  he  was  weak,  then  he  became  strong. 

On  this  side  the  influence  of  Christ  upon  the  Christian  life  was 
a  continuous  influence  extending  as  long  as  Hfe  itself.  But  even 
here  the  critical  moment  was  the  first,  because  it  established  the 


l8  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [I.  17. 

relation.  It  was  like  magnetism  which  begins  to  act  as  soon  as 
the  connexion  is  complete.  Accordingly  we  find  that  stress  is 
constantly  laid  upon  this  first  moment — the  moment  of  being 
'  baptized  into  Christ '  or  '  putting  on  Christ,'  although  it  is  by  no 
means  implied  that  the  relation  ceases  where  it  began,  and  on  the 
contrary  it  is  rather  a  relation  which  should  go  on  strengthening. 
Here  too  the  beginning  is  an  act  of  faith,  but  the  kind  of  faith 
which  proceeds  «  niartcos  ds  irlariv.  We  shall  have  the  process 
described  more  fully  when  we  come  to  chapters  vi-viii. 

Ak  irioTcws  els  ttiotii'.     The  analogy  of  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  8  (Ixxxiv.  7) 

tK  8vv(ifAe(os  (Is  8vvafiiv,  and  of  2  Cor.  ii.  16  tx   Gavdrov  eiy   Bdvarov  ,  ,  , 

<V  (arjs  (h  Coii}v,  seems  to  show  that  this  phrase  should  be  taken  as 
widely  as  possible.  It  is  a  mistake  to  limit  it  either  to  the  deepen- 
ing of  faith  in  the  individual  or  to  its  spread  in  the  world  at  large 
(ex  fide  predicantium  in  fidem  credentium  Sedulius) :  both  are 
included :  the  phrase  means  '  starting  from  a  smaller  quantity  of 
faith  to  produce  a  larger  quantity,'  at  once  intensively  and  ex- 
tensively, in  the  individual  and  in  society. 

A  SiKaios  Ik  iricrrecos.  Some  take  the  whole  of  this  phrase 
together.  '  The  man  whose  righteousness  is  based  on  faith,'  as  if 
the  contrast  (not  expressed  but  implied)  were  between  the  man 
whose  righteousness  is  based  on  faith  and  one  whose  righteousness 
is  based  on  works.  It  is  true  that  this  is  quite  in  harmony  with 
St  Paul's  teaching  as  expressed  more  fully  in  Rom.  iii.  22,  25; 
Gal.  ii.  16  :  but  it  was  certainly  not  the  meaning  of  Habakkuk, 
and  if  St.  Paul  had  intended  to  emphasize  the  point  here  it  lay 
very  near  at  hand  to  write  6  Se  «  iria-rKos  BiKaws,  and  so  remove  all 
ambiguity.  It  is  merely  a  question  of  emphasis,  because  in  the 
ordinary  way  of  taking  the  verse  it  is  implied  that  the  ruling 
motive  of  the  man,  the  motive  which  gives  value  to  his  righteous- 
ness and  gains  for  him  the  Divine  protection,  is  his  faith. 

A  few  authorities  (C*,  Vulg.  codd.  non  opt.  Harcl.,  Orig.-lat.  Hieron.) 
insert  /lou  (o  5^  5(«.  ^ow  €«  martais,  or  6  5i  SU.  ih,  Triffreon  fxov  (-qaeTai)  from 
the  LXX.  Marcion,  as  we  should  expect,  seems  to  have  omitted  not  only 
irpwTov  but  the  quotation  from  Habakkuk ;  this  would  naturally  follow 
from  his  antipathy  to  everything  Jewish,  though  he  was  not  quite  consistent 
in  cutting  out  all  quotations  from  the  O.  T.  He  retains  the  same  quotation 
(not,  however,  as  a  quotation)  in  Gal.  iii.  4,  the  context  of  which  he  is  able 
to  turn  against  the  Jews.  For  the  best  examinatioa  of  Marcion's  text  see 
Zahn,  Gesch.  d.  1^ cutest.  Kanons,  ii.  515  fi. 

The  word  fitKoio?  and  its  cognates. 

8(kou.os,  8ucai<KriivT|.  In  considering  the  meaning  and  application  ot  these 
terms  it  is  important  to  place  ourselves  at  the  right  point  of  view — at  the 
point  of  view,  that  is,  of  St  Paul  himself,  a  Jew  of  the  Jews,  and  not  either 
Greek  or  mediaeval  or  modem.  Two  main  facts  have  to  be  borne  in  mind 
in  regard  to  the  history  of  th*  wofds  Slieatot  and  SiKcuoavvrj.  The  first  is  that 
although  there  was  a  sense  in  which  the  Greek  words  corered  the  whol« 


1. 17.] 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY  FAITH  39 


range  of  right  action  (^Eth.  Nic.  V.  L  15  8t«a«o<TiJi'»7— T«A.f/a  apirt)  with  the 
•ingle  qualification  that  it  is  vphi  trtpov,  the  duty  to  one's  neighbour  *),  yet 
in  practice  it  was  far  more  commonly  used  in  the  narrower  sense  of  Justice 
(distributive  or  corrective  idid.  a  ff.).  The  Platonic  designation  of  SiKaioavvt) 
as  one  of  the  four  cardinal  virtues  (Wisdom,  Temperance,  and  Courage  or 
Fortitude,  being  the  others)  had  a  decisive  and  lasting  influence  on  the  whole 
subsequent  history  of  the  word  in  the  usage  of  Greek  philosophy,  and  of  all 
those  moral  systems  which  have  their  roots  in  that  fertile  soil.  In  giving 
a  more  limited  scope  to  the  word  Plato  was  only  following  the  genius  of  his 
people.  The  real  standard  of  Greek  morals  was  rather  t6  KaXov — that  which 
was  morally  noble,  impressive,  admirable — than  t6  Siicaiov.  And  if  there 
was  this  tendency  to  throw  the  larger  sense  of  diicatoavvr]  into  the  background 
in  Greek  morals,  that  tendency  was  still  more  intensified  when  the  scene  was 
changed  from  Greece  to  Rome.  The  Latin  language  had  no  equivalent  at 
all  for  the  wider  meaning  of  Sutaioavvq.  It  had  to  fall  back  upon  j'usttiia, 
which  in  Christian  circles  indeed  could  not  help  being  affected  by  the  domi- 
nant use  in  the  Bible,  but  which  could  never  wholly  throw  off  the  limiting 
conditions  of  its  origin.  This  is  the  second  fact  of  great  and  outstanding 
significance.  We  have  to  remember  that  the  Middle  Ages  derived  one  half  of 
its  list  of  virtues  through  Cicero,  firom  the  Stoics  and  Plato,  and  that  the  four 
Pagan  virtues  were  still  further  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the  Christian  triad. 

Happily  for  ourselves  we  have  in  English  two  distinct  words  for  the  two 
distinct  conceptions,  'justice '  and  '  righteousness,'  And  so  especially  from 
the  time  of  the  translation  of  the  Bible  into  the  vernacular,  the  conception 
'  righteousness '  has  gone  far  to  recover  its  central  importance.  The  same 
may  perhaps  be  said  of  the  Teutonic  nations  generally,  through  the  strength 
of  the  Biblical  influence,  though  the  German  branch  has  but  the  single  word 
Gerechtigkeit  to  express  the  two  ideas.  With  them  it  is  probably  true 
that  the  wider  sense  takes  precedence  of  the  narrower.  But  at  the  time 
when  St.  Paul  wrote  the  Jew  stood  alone  in  maintaining  the  larger  sense  of 
the  word  full  and  undiminished. 

It  is  a  subordinate  question  what  was  the  origin  of  the  fundamental  idea. 
A  recent  writer  (Smend,  AUtest.  Religionsgtsch,  p.  410  ff.)  puts  forward  the 
view  that  this  was  the  '  being  in  the  right,'  as  a  party  to  a  suit  in  a  court  of 
law.  It  may  well  be  true  that  as  h'lK^  meant  in  the  first  instance  ' usage,' 
and  then  came  to  mean  '  right '  because  usage  was  the  earliest  standard  of 
right,  in  like  manner  the  larger  idea  of  '  righteousness '  may  have  grown 
up  out  of  the  practice  of  primitive  justice.  It  may  have  been  first  applied 
to  the  litigant  who  was  adjudged  to  be  '  in  the  right,'  and  to  the  judge,  who 
awarded  '  the  right '  carefully  and  impartially. 

This  is  matter,  more  or  less,  of  speculation.  In  any  case  the  Jew  of 
St.  Paul's  day,  whatever  his  faults,  assigned  no  inadequate  place  to 
Righteousness.  It  was  with  him  really  the  highest  moral  ideal,  the  principle 
of  all  action,  the  goal  of  all  effort 

If  the  Jew  had  a  fault  it  was  not  that  righteousness  occupied  an  inadequate 
place  in  his  thoughts ;  it  was  rather  that  he  went  a  wrong  way  to  attain  to 
it.  '\<jpa^\  t\  dtwKcov  vofiop  iticaioavt'Tjs  ft?  yS/xov  ovk  f<p9aaf,  is  St.  Paul's 
mournful  verdict  (Rom,  ix.  31).  For  a  Jew  the  whole  sphere  of  righteousness 
was  taken  up  by  the  Mosaic  Law.  His  one  idea  of  righteousness  was  that 
of  conformity  to  this  Law.  Righteousness  was  for  him  essentially  obedience 
to  the  law.  No  doubt  it  was  this  in  the  first  instance  out  of  regard  to  the 
law  as  the  expressed  Will  of  God.  But  the  danger  lay  in  resting  too  much 
in  the  code  as  a  code  and  losing  sight  of  the  personal  Will  of  a  holy  and 
good  God  behind  it.  The  Jew  made  this  mistake ;  and  the  consequence  was 
Qiat  his  view  of  obedience  to  the  law  became  formal  and  mechanical.  It  ia 
impossible  for  an  impartial  mind  not  to  be  deeply  touched  by  the  spectack 
*  Aristotle  quotes  the  proverb  tv  Si  Riittuoaiv^  ovKKiffi^v  ira<r'  ipvrii  ivt. 


yO  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  \1.  17. 

of  the  religions  leaders  of  a  nation  devoting  themselves  with  lo  mnch  eunest- 
ness  and  real  to  the  study  of  a  law  which  they  believed  to  come,  and  which 
in  a  certain  sense  and  measure  really  did  come,  from  God,  and  yet  failing  so 
disasLrously  as  their  best  friends  allow  that  they  did  fail  in  grasping  the 
law  s  true  spirit.  No  one  felt  more  keenly  than  St.  Paul  himself  the  full 
pathos  of  the  situation.  Ilis  heart  bleeds  for  them  (Rom.  ix.  2  ;  he  cannot 
withhold  his  testimony  to  their  zeal,  though  unhappily  it  is  not  a  teal 
according  to  knowledge  (Rom.  x.  2). 

Hence  it  was  that  all  this  mass— we  must  allow  of  honest  though  ill- 
directed  effort — needed  reforming.  The  more  radical  the  reformation  the 
better.  There  came  One  Who  laid  His  finger  upon  the  weak  place  and 
pointed  out  the  remedy — at  first  as  it  would  seem  only  in  words  in  which  the 
Scripture-loving  Rabbis  had  been  before  Him  :  '  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all  thy  mind  .  .  . 
and  .  .  .  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself  (Matt.  xxii.  37,  39  ||\ 
and  then  more  searchingly  and  with  greater  fulness  of  illustration  and 
application,  '  There  is  nothing  from  without  the  man  that  going  into  him 
can  defile  him :  but  the  things  which  proceed  out  of  the  man  are  those  that 
defile  the  man '  (Mark  vii.  15  ||) ;  and  then  yet  again  more  searchingly  still, 
'  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden  .  .  .  Take  My  yoke 
upon  >  ou  and  learn  of  Me  .  .  .  For  My  yoke  it  easy,  and  My  burden  is  light ' 
(Matt'  xi.  28-30). 

So  the  Master ;  and  then  came  the  disciple.  And  he  too  seised  the  heart 
of  the  secret.  He  too  saw  what  the  Master  had  refrained  from  putting  with 
a  dey;ree  of  emphasis  which  might  have  been  misunderstood  (at  least  the 
majority  of  His  reporters  might  leave  the  impression  .l!i:.t  tliis  had  been  the 
case,  though  one,  the  Fourth  Evangelist,  makes  Hini  speak  more  plainly). 
The  later  disciple  saw  that,  if  there  was  to  be  a  real  reformation,  the  first 
thing  to  be  done  was  to  give  it  a  personal  ground,  to  base  it  on  a  personal 
relationship.  And  therefore  he  lays  down  that  the  righteousness  of  the 
Christian  is  to  be  a  '  righteousness  offaith^  Enough  will  have  been  said  in 
the  next  note  and  in  those  on  \k  mffTfois  and  Sinaioffvyrj  Btov  as  to  the 
nature  of  this  righteousness.  It  is  sharply  contrasted  with  the  Jewish  con- 
ception of  righteousness  as  obedience  to  law,  and  of  course  goes  far  deeper 
than  any  Pagan  conception  as  to  the  motive  of  righteousness.  The  specially 
Pauline  feature  in  the  conception  expressed  in  this  passage  is  that  the 
'  declaration  of  righteousness '  on  the  part  of  God,  the  Divine  verdict  of 
acquittal,  runs  in  advance  of  the  actual  practice  of  righteousness,  and  comes 
forth  at  once  on  the  sincere  embracing  of  Christianity. 

BiKaioCv,  SiKaiovo  9ai.  The  verb  biKaioxiv  means  properly  *  to  pronounce 
righteous.*  It  has  relation  to  a  verdict  pronounced  by  a  judge.  In  so  far  as 
the  person  '  pronounced  righteous '  is  not  really  righteous  it  has  the  sense  of 
'  amnesty '  or  '  forgiveness.'  But  it  cannot  mean  to  '  make  righteous.' 
There  may  be  other  influences  which  go  to  make  a  person  righteous,  but 
they  are  not  contained,  or  even  hinted  at,  in  the  word  hucatovv.  That  word 
means  '  to  declare  righteous,'  '  to  treat  as  righteous ' ;  it  may  even  mean  '  to 
prove  righteous ' ;  but  whether  the  person  so  declared,  treated  as,  or  proved 
to  be  righteous  is  really  so,  the  word  itself  neither  affirms  nor  denies. 

This  rather  sweeping  proposition  is  made  good  by  the  following  con- 
siderations : — 

(i)  By  the  nature  of  verbs  in  -<5o>:  comp.  .5^.  Comm.  on  i  Cor.  vi.  11 
•How  can  ?iKaiovv  possibly  signify  "to  make  righteous'^"  Verbs  indeed  of 
this  ending  from  adjectives  of  physical  meaning  may  have  this  use  e.  g. 
rvif'Xox/v,  •'  to  make  blind."  But  when  such  words  are  derived  from  adjectives 
of  moral  meaning,  as  &^iovv,  ooioiv,  SiKatovf,  they  'io  by  usage  and  must 
from  the  nature  of  things  signify  to  deem,  to  account,  to  prove,  01  to  treat 
at  worthy,  holy,  righteous.' 


I.  17.] 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD   BY  FAITH  3I 


(ii)  By  the  regular  nse  of  the  word.  Godet  (p.  199)  makes  a  bold 
assertion,  which  he  is  hardly  likely  to  have  verified,  but  yet  which  is  probably 
right,  that  Ihere  is  no  example  in  the  whole  of  classical  literature  where  the 
word  = '  to  make  righteous.'  The  word  however  is  not  of  frequent  occurrence, 
(iii^i  From  the  constant  usage  of  the  LXX  (O.  T.  and  Apocr.),  where  the 
word  occurs  some  forty-five  times,  always  or  almost  always  with  the  forensic 
or  judicial  sense. 

In  the  great  majority  of  cases  this  sense  is  unmistalcable.  The  nearest 
approach  to  an  exception  is  Ps.  Ixxiii  [Ixxii]  13  apa  fxaraiwi  iSiKaiwaa  t^v 
«ap5iW /*oi;, where, however,  the  word  seems  to  =-  'pronounced  righteous,'  in 
other  words,  'I  called  my  conscience  clear.'  In  Jer.  iii.  11  ;  Ezek.  xvL  51, 
53  8««.  =  '  prove  righteous.' 

(iv)  From  a  like  usage  in  the  Pseudepigraphic  Books :  e.  g.  Ps.  Sol.  ii.  16 ; 
iii.  5 ;  iv.  9;  viii.  7,  27,  31 ;  ix.  3  (in  these  passages  the  word  is  used  con- 
sistently of  'vindicating'  the  character  of  God);  justifico  4  Ezr.  iv.  18; 
I.  16 ;  xii.  7  ;  5  Ezr.  ii.  20  {Libb.  Apocr.  ed.  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  p.  643) — all 
these  passages  are  forensic  ;  Apoc.  Baruch.  (in  Ceriani's  translation  from 
the  Syriac)  xxi.  9,  11  ;  xxiv.  i— where  the  word  is  applied  to  those  who  are 
'  declared  innocent '  as  opposed  to  '  sinners.'  » 

(v)  From  the  no  less  predominant  and  unmistakable  usage  of  the  N.  T. : 
Matt.  xi.  19;  xii.  37 ;  Luke  vii.  39,  3;  ;  x.  39 ;  xvi.  15  ;  xviii.  14;  Rom.  ii. 
13;  iii.  4;  I  Cor.  iv.  4;  i  Tim.  iii.  16 — to  quote  only  passages  which  are 
absolntely  unambiguous. 

(vi)  The  meaning  is  brought  out  in  full  in  ch.  iv.  5  ry  II  n^  epya^o/iivip, 
wiffrtvovTi  Sf  (irl  ruv  ZiKaiovvra  tov  datlifj,  Ao7t([f rai  17  w'kttis  ovtov  els  SiKaio- 
avvqv.  Here  it  is  expressly  stated  that  the  person  justified  has  nothing 
to  show  in  the  way  of  meritorious  acts ;  his  one  asset  (so  to  speak)  is  faith, 
and  this  faith  is  taken  as  an  '  equivalent  for  righteousness. ' 

We  content  ourselves  for  the  present  with  stating  this  result  as  a  philo- 
logical fact.  What  further  consequences  it  has,  and  how  it  fits  into  the 
teaching  of  St.  Paul,  will  appear  later ;  see  the  notes  on  SiKatoffvvT)  @(ov 
above  and  below. 

8iKaiu)(ta.  For  the  force  of  the  termination  -/xa  reference  should  be  made 
to  a  note  by  the  late  T.  S.  Evans  in  S/>.  Comm.  on  i  Cor.  v.  6,  part  of  which 
is  quoted  in  this  commentary  on  Rom.  iv.  2.  SiKaiwfM  is  the  definite  con- 
crete expression  of  the  act  of  ZiKwcuais :  we  might  define  it  as  '  a  declaration 
that  a  thing  is  Ktitaiov,  or  that  a  person  is  S'lKaios.'  From  the  first  use  we  get 
the  common  sense  of  ordinance,'  'statute,'  as  in  Luke  i.  6  ;  Rom.  i.  32,  ii. 
36,  and  practically  viii.  4 ;  from  the  second  we  get  the  more  characteristically 
Pauline  use  in  R<ym.  v.  16,  18.  For  the  special  shades  of  meaning  in  these 
passages  see  the  notes  upon  them. 

StKaioxns.  This  word  occurs  only  twice  in  this  Epistle  (iv.  35,  v.  18), 
and  not  at  all  besides  in  the  N.  T.  Its  pl.ice  is  taken  by  the  verb  Stmiovv, 
just  as  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  the  verb  mcrtiiuv  occurs  no  less  than 
ninety-eight  times,  while  the  substantive  mam  is  entirely  absent.  In 
meaning  St/caicuffu  preserves  the  proper  force  of  the  termination  -ffis :  it 
denotes  the  *  process  or  act  of  pronouncing  righteous,'  in  the  case  of  sinners, 
'  the  act  of  acquittal.' 

The  Meaning  of  Faith  in  the  New  Testament  and  in 
some  Jewish   Writings. 

The  word  iriVrt*  has  two  leading  senses,  1)  fidelity  and  (a)  belief.  The 
secoiid  sense,  as  we  have  said,  bas  its  more  exact  significance  determined  by 
its  object:  it  may  mean,  (i)  beliet  in  God;  iii)  belief  in  the  promises  oi 
God  ;  (iii)  belief  in  Christ ;  (ivj  belief  in  some  particular  utterance,  claim,  o» 
promise  of  God  or  Christ. 


$1  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [I.  IT 

The  last  of  these  senses  is  the  one  most  common  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
'Faith'  is  thtie  usually  'belief  in  the  miracle-working  power  of  Christ  or  ol 
Cod  through  Christ.'  It  is  o)  the  response  of  the  applicant  for  relief — 
V.  hether  for  himself  or  another — to  the  offer  expressed  or  implied  of  that 
relief  by  means  of  miracles  (Mark  v.  34  ||  ;  x.  53  ||).  The  effect  of  the 
miracle  is  usually  proportioned  to  the  strength  of  this  response  (Matt.  ix.  29 
ward  T:7f  rrloTiv  v^Siv  ytvT]Qr)Ta}  v/.uv:  for  degrees  of  faith  see  Matt.  viii.  10, 
36;  Luke  xvii.  5,  &c.).  In  Acts  iii.  16  the  faith  which  has  just  before  been 
described  as  '  faith  in  the  Name '  (of  Christ)  is  spoken  of  as  '  faith  brought 
into  being  by  Christ'  (17  Triarn  f/  h'  aiirov).  Faith  is  also  {0)  the  confidence 
of  the  disciple  that  he  can  exercise  the  like  miracle-working  power  when  ex- 
pressly conferred  upon  him  1  Mark  xi.  33-34  ||).  This  kind  of  faith  our  Lord 
in  one  place  calls  'faith  in  God'  (Mark  xi.  32).  There  is  one  instance  of 
'  faith '  used  in  a  more  general  sense.  When  the  Son  of  Man  asks  whether 
when  He  comes  He  shall  find  faith  on  the  earth  (Luke  xviii.  8)  He  meant 
'faith  in  Himself.' 

Faith  in  the  performance  of  miracles  is  a  sense  which  naturally  passes 
over  into  the  Acts  (Acts  iii.  16  ;  xiv.  9).  We  find  in  that  book  also '  ihe  faith ' 
{f)  niarts  Acts  vi.  7 ;  xiiL  8 ;  xiv.  2  2 ;  xvi.  5 ;  xxiv.  24),  i.  e. '  the  faith  distinctive 
of  Christians,'  belief  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.  '  A  door  of  faith '  (,Acts 
xiv.  27)  means  'an  opening  for  the  spread  of  this  belief.'  When  nians  is 
used  as  an  attribute  of  individuals  {TrKrjprji  marfwi  Acts  vi.  5  of  Stephen  ;  xi. 
34  of  Barnabas)  it  has  the  Pauline  sense  of  the  enthusiasm  and  force  of 
character  which  come  from  this  belief  in  Jesus. 

In  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  iriajti  is  twice  applied  to  prayer  (Jas.  i.  6 ;  v. 
15),  where  it  means  the  faith  that  God  will  grant  what  is  prayed  for.  Twice 
it  means  '  Christian  faith '  (Jas.  i.  3  ;  ii.  i ).  In  the  controversial  passage, 
Jas.  ii.  14-26,  where  Faith  is  contiasted  with  Works,  the  faith  intended  is 
'  faith  in  God.'  One  example  of  it  is  the  '  belief  that  God  is  One '  (Jas.  ii. 
19) ;  another  is  the  trust  in  God  which  led  Abraham  to  sacrifice  Isaac  (Jas.  it 
31),  and  to  believe  in  the  promise  of  his  birth  (Jas.  ii.  23).  Faith  with 
St.  James  is  more  often  the  faith  which  is  common  to  Jew  and  Christian ; 
even  where  it  is  Christian  faith,  it  stops  short  of  the  Christian  enthusiasm. 

In  St.  Jude,  whose  Epistle  must  on  that  account  be  placed  late  in  the 
Apostolic  age,  faith  has  got  the  concrete  sense  of  a  'body  of  belief — not 
necessarily  a  large  or  complete  body,  but,  as  we  should  say,  '  the  essentials 
of  Christianity.'  As  the  particular  point  against  which  the  saints  are  to 
contend  is  the  denial  of  Christ,  so  the  faith  for  which  they  are  to  contend 
would  be  the  (full)  confession  of  Christ  (Jude  3  f.,  20). 

In  the  two  Epistles  of  St  Peter  faith  is  alwajs  Christian  faith  (1  Pet.  i.  5, 
7-9  ;  ii.  6;  3  Pet.  i.  i,  5),  and  usually  faith  as  the  foundation  of  character. 
When  St.  Peter  speaks  of  Christians  as  '  guarded  through  faith  unto  salva- 
tion '  (I  Pet.  i.  5)  his  use  approaches  that  of  St  Paul ;  faith  is  treated  as  the 
'  one  thing  needful,' 

St  John,  as  we  have  seen,  very  rarely  uses  the  word  mans  (i  Jo.  ▼.  4), 
though  he  makes  up  by  his  fondness  for  TnaTevai.  With  him  too  faith  is 
a  very  fundamental  thing;  it  is  the  '  victory  which  overcometh  the  world.' 
It  is  defined  to  be  the  belief 'that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God'  (i  Jo.  v.  5^ 
Compared  with  St.  Paul's  conception  we  may  say  that  faith  with  St.  John  is 
rather  contemplative  and  philosophic,  where  with  St.  Paul  it  is  active  and 
enthusiastic.  In  the  Apocalypse  faith  comes  nearer  to  fidelity ;  it  is  belief 
steadfastly  held  (Rev.  it  13,  19 ;  xiii.  10  ;  xiv.  12  ;  cf.  also  tr«rr^i  i-  5 !  ii- 
10,  &c.). 

The  distinctive  use  of  '  faith '  in  the  ^2pistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  for  faith  in 
the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises,  a  firm  belief  of  that  which  is  still  future  and 
unseen  [hXiri^ofikvajv  vnoaraais,  vpayfmTcvv  f\eyxos  ov  li\tvop.(van'  Heb.  xi.  I). 
This  use  not  only  runs  through  ch.  xi^  but  is  predominant  in  all  the  places 
where  the  word  occurs  (Heb.  iv.  a  ;  vi.  i  -  x.  33  f. ;  xii.  3  ;  xiii.  7)  .-  it  is  not 


I.  17.] 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY   FAITH  33 


found  in  St.  Paul  of  promises  the  fulfilment  of  which  is  still  future  (for  this 
he  prefers  iXwis :  cf.  Rom.  viii.  35  tl  5i  6  oi/  l3K(-non(v  (Km(oiJ.tv,  S«'  vtrofiov^s 
inftcSfx6nf9a).  St.  Paul  does  however  use  '  faith '  for  the  confidence  of  O.  T. 
saints  in  the  fulfilment  of  particular  promises  made  to  them  (so  of  Abraham 
in  Rom.  It). 

Going  outside  the  N.  T.  it  is  natural  that  the  use  of  *  faith '  should  be 
neither  so  high  nor  so  definite.  Still  the  word  is  found,  and  frequently 
enough  to  show  that  the  idea  '  was  in  the  air '  and  waiting  only  for  an  object 
worthy  of  it.  '  Faith '  enters  rather  largely  into  the  eschatological  teaching 
respecting  the  Messianic  time.  Here  it  appears  to  have  the  sense  of '  fidelity 
to  the  O.  T.  religion.'  In  the  Psalms  0/ Solomon  it  is  characteristic  of  the 
Messiah  Himself:  Ps,  Sol.  xvii.  45  ■noijxaivojv  t6  iroi/xviov  Kvpiov  iv  itiaiti  koX 
biKaioavvT).  In  the  other  Books  it  is  characteristic  of  His  subjects.  Thus 
4  Ezr.  vi.  i^Jlorebit  auiem fiJes  et  vincettir  corruptela;  vii.  34  Veritas  stabit 
et  fides  co7ivalescet ;  44  (114)  soliita  est  intcmperantia,  abscissa  est  incredu- 
litas  (=airj<rTia).  In  Apoc.  Barjic/i.  and  Ass u nip.  Mays,  the  word  has  this 
sense,  but  not  quite  in  the  same  connexion  :  Apoc.  Bar.  liv.  5  revelas  ab- 
scondiia  inimaculatis  qui  in  fide  subiecerunt  se  tibi  et  legi  ttiae  ;  21  glori- 
ficabis  fideles  iuxta  fideni  eoriim;  lix.  1  incredulis  torinentut)i  ignis  reser- 
vatiim  ;  Ass.  Movs.  iv.  %  dtiae  autem  tribus perma7iebunt  in praeposita  fide. 
In  Apoc.  Bar  Ivii.  2  we  have  it  in  the  sense  of  faith  in  the  prophecy  of  com- 
ing judgement  ;y5'rt'('j'  itidicii  fiitiiri  tunc gignebatitr.  Several  times,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  use  in  St.  Paul,  we  find  opera  et  fides  combined,  still  in  con- 
nexion with  the  '  last  things '  but  retrospectively  with  reference  to  the  life  on 
earth.  So  4  Ezra  ix.  7,  8  et  erit,  oinnis  qui  salvus  /actus  fuerit  et  qui  po- 
terit  effugere  per  opera  sua  vel per  fideni  in  qua  credidit,  is  relinquetur  de 
praedictis  periculis  et  videbit  salutare  nieuni  in  terra  mea  et  in  finibus 
meis  ;  xiii.  23  ipse  custodibit  qui  in  periculo  incideritit,  hi  sunt  qtii  habent 
opera  et  fidem  ad  Fortissinumi.  We  might  well  believe  that  both  these  pas- 
sages were  suggested,  though  perhaps  somewhat  remotely,  by  the  verse  of 
Habakkuk  which  St.  Paul  quotes.     The  same  may  be  said  of  5  Ezr.  xv.  3, 

4  nee  turbent  te  increduliiates  dicentitim,  quoniain  omnis  incredu/us  in  in- 
credulitate  sua  morietur  {Libb.  Apocr.  p.  645,  ed.  O.  F.  Fritzsche). 

Among  all  these  various  usages,  in  Canonical  Books  as  well  as  Elxtra- 
canonical,  the  usage  of  St.  Paul  stands  out  markedly.  It  forms  a  climax  to 
them  all  with  the  single  exception  of  St.  John.  There  is  hardly  one  of  the 
ordinary  uses  which  i«  not  represented  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.  To  confine 
ourselves  to  Ep.  to  Romans;  we  have  the  word  (i)  clearly  used  in  the  sense 
of  'fidelity'  or  * faithfuhiess '  (the  faithfulness  of  God  in  performing  His 
promises),  Rom.  iii.  3  ;  also  (ii)  in  the  sense  of  a  faith  which  is  practically 
that  of  the  miracle-worker,  faith  as  the  foundation  for  the  exercise  of  spiritual 
gifts,  Rom.  xii  3,  6.  We  have  it  (iii)  for  a  faith  like  that  of  Abraham  in 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promises  of  which  he  was  the  chosen  recipient,  Rom.  iv. 
passim.  The  faith  of  Abraham  however  becomes  something  more  than 
a  particular  attitude  in  regard  to  particular  promises ;  it  is  (iv)  a  standing 
attitude,  deliberate  faith  in  God.  the  key-note  of  his  character ;  in  ch.  iv.  the 
last  sense  is  constantly  gliding  into  this.  A  faith  like  Abraham's  is  typical  0/ 
the  Christian's  faith,  which  has  however  both  a  lower  sense  and  a  higher : 
sometimes  (v)  it  is  in  a  general  sense  the  acceptance  of  Christianity,  Rom.  i. 

5  ;  I.  8,  17 ;  xvi.  26;  but  it  is  also  (vi)  that  specially  strong  and  confident 
acceptance,  that  firm  planting  of  the  character  upon  the  service  of  Christ, 
which  enables  a  man  to  disregard  small  scruples,  Rom.  xiv.  i,  22  f. ;  cf.  i. 
17.  The  centre  and  mainspring  of  this  higher  form  of  faith  is  (vii)  defined 
more  exactly  as  'faith  in  Jesus  Christ,'  Rom.  iii.  32  q. v.,  26.  This  is  the 
crowning  and  characteristic  sense  with  St.  Paul;  and  it  is  really  this  which 
he  has  in  view  wherever  he  ascribes  to  faith  the  decisive  significance  which 
he  does  ascribe  to  it,  even  though  the  object  is  not  expressed  (as  in  i.  17;  iii. 


34  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [I.  16,  IT 

47  f[.;  T.  I,  a).  We  have  teen  that  it  i<  not  merely  assent  or  adhesion  bnt 
enthusiastic  adhesion,  personal  adhesion ;  the  highest  and  most  effective 
motive  power  of  which  human  character  is  capable.  It  is  well  to  remembei 
that  St.  Paul  has  all  these  meanings  before  him  ;  and  he  glances  from  one  to 
another  as  the  hand  of  a  violin- player  runs  over  the  strings  of  his  violin. 


Thi  Righteousness  of  God, 

The  idea  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  imposing  as  it  is  in  the 

development  given  to  it  in  this  Epistle,  is  by  no  means  essentially 
a  new  one.  It  is  one  of  those  fundamental  Biblical  ideas  which 
run  through  both  Te.'-taments  alike  and  appear  in  a  great  variety  of 
application.  The  Hebrew  prophets  were  as  far  as  possible  from 
conceiving  of  the  Godhead  as  a  metaphysical  abstraction.  The 
I  AM  THAT  I  AM  of  the  Book  of  Exodus  is  very  different  from 
the  OJ/TC09  01/,  the  Pure  Being,  without  attributes  because  removed 
from  all  contact  with  matter,  of  the  Platonizing  philosophers.  The 
essential  properties  of  Righteousness  and  Holiness  which  charac- 
terized the  Lord  of  all  spirits  contained  within  themselves  the 
springs  of  an  infinite  expansiveness.  Having  brought  into  existence 
a  Being  endowed  with  the  faculty  of  choice  and  capable  of  right 
and  wrong  action  they  could  not  rest  until  they  had  imparted  to 
that  Being  something  of  themselves.  The  Prophets  and  Psalmists 
of  the  Old  Testament  seized  on  this  idea  and  gave  it  grand  and 
far-reaching  expression.  We  are  apt  not  to  realize  until  we  come 
to  look  to  what  an  extent  the  leading  terms  in  this  main  pro- 
position of  the  Epistle  had  been  already  combined  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Reference  has  been  made  to  the  triple  combination  of 
'righteousness,'  'salvation'  and  'revelation'  in  Ps.  xcviii.  [xcvii.]  a: 
similarly  Is.  Ivi.  i  '  My  salvation  is  near  to  come,  and  My  righteous- 
ness to  be  revealed.'  The  double  combination  of  '  righteousness ' 
and  '  salvation '  is  more  common.  In  Ps.  xxiv.  [xxiii.]  5  it  is 
slightly  obscured  in  the  LXX :  '  He  shall  receive  a  blessing  from 
the  Lord  and  righteousness  {tKft^yioavtrqv)  from  the  God  of  his 
salvation  {napa  Q(ov  (r<aTrjpoi  airov)'  In  the  Second  Part  of  Isaiah 
it  occurs  frequently:  Is.  xlv.  21-25  *  There  is  no  God  beside  Me  ; 
a  just  God  and  a  Saviour  {SUaiot  koI  o-cdttip).  Look  unto  Me  and 
be  ye  saved  . .  .  the  word  is  gone  forth  from  My  mouth  in  righteous- 
ness and  shall  not  return  (or  righteousness  is  gone  forth  from  My 
mouth,  a  word  which  shall  not  return  R.  V.  marg.) .  .  .  Only  in 
the  Lord  shall  one  say  unto  Me  is  righteousness  and  strength.  .  . . 
In  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel  be  justified  {ano  Kvplm 
tiicaia)6fj(TovTai),  and  shall  glory':  Is.  xlvi.  13  'I  bring  near  My 
righteousness ;  it  shall  not  be  far  off,  and  My  salvation  shall  not 
tarry :  and  I  will  place  salvation  in  Zion  for  Israel  My  glory ' :  Is. 
li.  5,  6  '  My  righteousness  is  near,  My  salvation  is  gone  forth  .  . . 


1. 16, 17.J      RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY  FAITH  35 

My  salvation  shall  be  for  ever,  and  My  righteousness  shall  not  be 
abolished.' 

In  all  these  passages  the  righteousness  of  God  is  conceived  as 
'going  forth,'  as  projected  from  the  Divine  essence  and  realizing 
itself  among  men.  In  Is.  liv.  17  it  is  expressly  said,  'Their 
righteousness  [which]  is  of  Me ' ;  and  in  Is.  xlv.  25  the  process  is 
described  as  one  of  justification  ('in  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of 
Israel  be  justified ' :  see  above).  In  close  attendance  on  the 
righteousness  of  God  is  His  salvation ;  where  the  one  is  the  other 
immediately  follows. 

These  passages  seem  to  have  made  a  deep  impression  upon 
St.  Paul.  To  him  too  it  seems  a  necessity  that  the  righteousness 
of  God  should  be  not  only  inherent  but  energizing,  that  it  should 
impress  and  diffuse  itself  as  an  active  force  in  the  world. 

According  to  St.  Paul  the  manifestation  of  the  Divine  righteous- 
ness takes  a  number  of  different  forms.  Four  of  these  may  be 
specified,  (i)  It  is  seen  in  the  fidelity  with  which  God  fulfils  His 
promises  (Rom.  iii.  3,  4).  (2)  It  is  seen  in  the  punishment 
which  God  metes  out  upon  sin,  especially  the  great  final  punish- 
ment, the   Tjftepa   opyrjs  Koi  arroKaXtylreos  SiKaioKpialas  Toii  Qfov  (Rom. 

ii.  5).  Wrath  is  only  the  reaction  of  the  Divine  righteousness 
when  it  comes  into  collision  with  sin.  (3)  There  is  one  signal  mani- 
festation of  righteousness,  the  nature  of  which  it  is  difficult  for  us 
wholly  to  grasp,  in  the  Death  of  Christ.  We  are  going  further 
than  we  have  warrant  for  if  we  set  the  Love  of  God  in  opposition 
to  His  Justice;  but  we  have  the  express  warrant  of  Rom.  iii.  25,  a6 
for  regarding  the  Death  on  Calvary  as  a  culminating  exhibition  of 
the  Divine  righteousness,  an  exhibition  which  in  some  mysterious 
way  explains  and  justifies  the  apparent  slumbering  of  Divine  re- 
sentment against  sin.  The  inadequate  punishment  hitherto  in- 
flicted upon  sin,  the  long  reprieve  which  had  been  allowed  man- 
kind to  induce  them  to  repent,  all  looked  forward  as  it  were  to  that 
culminating  event.  Without  it  they  could  not  have  been ;  but  the 
shadow  of  it  was  cast  before,  and  the  prospect  of  it  made  them 
possible.  (4)  There  is  a  further  link  of  connexion  between  what  is 
said  as  to  the  Death  of  Christ  on  Calvary  and  the  leading  pro- 
position laid  down  in  these  verses  (i.  16,  17)  as  to  a  righteousness 
of  God  apprehended  by  faith.  "The  Death  of  Christ  is  of  the 
nature  of  a  sacrifice  (fV  r^  avroO  aiftari)  and  acts  as  an  IKatTTfjpiov 
(iii.  25  q.  V.)  by  virtue  of  which  the  Righteousness  of  God  which 
reaches  its  culminating  expression  in  it  becomes  capable  of  wide 
diffusion  amongst  men.  This  is  the  great  '  going  forth '  of  the 
Divine  Righteousness,  and  it  embraces  in  its  scope  all  believers. 
The  essence  of  it,  however,  is — at  least  at  first,  whatever  it  may  be 
ultimately — that  it  consists  not  m  making  men  actually  righteous 
but  in  '  justifying '  or  treating  them  as  if  they  were  righteout. 


36  EPISTLE   TO  THE  ROMANS  [I.  16,  17. 

Here  we  reach  a  fundamental  conception  with  St.  Paul,  and  one 
which  dominates  all  this  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  so  that 
it  may  be  well  to  dwell  upon  it  in  some  detail. 

\  We  have  seen  that  a  process  of  transference  or  conversion 
takes  place  ;  that  the  righteousness  of  which  St.  Paul  speaks,  though 
it  issues  forth  from  God,  ends  in  a  state  or  condition  of  man.  How 
could  this  be?  The  name  which  St.  Paul  gives  to  the  process 
is  8t»caicoo-ts  (iv.  25,  V.  18).  More  often  he  uses  in  respect  to 
it  the  verb  ^Kaioia-dai  (iii.  34,  28,  v.  i,  9,  viii.  30,  33).  The  full 
phrase  is  StKatoOcr^ai  «*c  nicrrtas :  which  means  that  the  believer,  by 
virtue  of  his  faith,  is  'accounted  or  treated  as  if  he  were  righteous' 
in  the  sight  of  God.  More  even  than  this :  the  person  so  '  ac- 
counted righteous'  may  be,  and  indeed  is  assumed  to  be,  not 
actually  righteous,  but  dat^qs  (Rom.  iv.  5),  an  offender  against 
God. 

There  is  something  sufficiently  startling  in  this.  The  Christian 
life  is  made  to  have  its  beginning  in  a  fiction.  No  wonder  that 
the  fact  is  questioned,  and  that  another  sense  is  given  to  the  words 
— that  8iKaiov(T6in  is  taken  to  imply  not  the  attribution  of  righteous- 
ness in  idea  but  an  imparting  of  actual  righteousness.  The  facts 
of  language,  however,  are  inexorable :  we  have  seen  that  biKaiovv, 
8iKaiov(r6M  have  the  first  sense  and  not  the  second ;  that  they  are 
rightly  said  to  be  ' forensic*;  that  they  have  reference  to  a  judicial 
verdict,  and  to  nothing  beyond.  To  this  conclusion  we  feel  bound 
to  adhere,  even  though  it  should  follow  that  the  state  described 
,     is  (if  we  are  pressed)  a  fiction,  that  God  is  regarded  as  dealing 

,'  with  men  rather  by  the  ideal  standard  of  what  they  may  be  than  by 
the  actual  standard  of  what  they  are.  What  this  means  is  that 
when  a  man  makes  a  great  change  such  as  that  which  the  first 
Christians  made  when  they  embraced  Christianity,  he  is  allowed 
to  start  on  his  career  with  a  clean  record ;  his  sin-stained  past 
is  not  reckoned  against  him.  The  change  is  the  great  thing ;  it 
is  that  at  which  God  looks.  As~witH~  the~Pr63igal  Son  in  the 
parable  the  breakdown  of  his  pride  and  rebellion  in  the  one  cry, 
'  Father,  I  have  sinned'  is  enough.  The  father  does  not  wait 
to  be  gracious.  He  does  not  put  him  upon  a  long  term  of 
probation,  but  reinstates  him  at  once  in  the  full  privilege  of 
sonship.  The  justifying  verdict  is  nothing  more  than  the  '  best 
robe'  and  the  'ring'  and  the  'fatted  calf'  of  the  parable  (Luke 
XV.  22  f). 

When  the  process  of  Justification  is  thus  reduced  to  its  simplest 
elements  we  see  that  there  is  after  all  nothing  so  very  strange 
about  it.  It  is  simply  Forgiyeness,  Free  Forgiveness.  The  Parable 
of  the  Prodigal  Son  is  a  picture  of  it  which  is  complete  on  two 
of  its  sides,  as  an  expression  of  the  attitude  of  mind  required  in 
the  sinner,  and  of  the  reception  accorded  to  him  by  God.     To 


1.16,17.]      RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  GOD  BY  FAITH  37 

insist  that  it  must  also  be  complete  in  a  negative  sense,  and  that 
it  excludes  any  further  conditions  of  acceptance,  because  no  such 
conditions  are  mentioned,  is  to  forget  the  nature  of  a  parable. 
It  would  be  as  reasonable  to  argue  that  the  father  would  be 
indifferent  to  the  future  conduct  of  the  son  whom  he  has  recovered 
because  the  curtain  falls  upon  the  scene  of  his  recovery  and  is 
not  again  lifted.  By  pressing  the  argument  from  silence  in  this 
way  we  should  only  make  the  Gospels  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves, because  elsewhere  they  too  (as  we  shall  see)  speak  of 
further  conditions  besides  the  attitude  and  temper  of  the  sinner. 

We  see  then  that  at  bottom  and  when  we  come  to  the  essence  of 
things  the  teaching  of  the  Gospels  is  not  really  different  from  the 
teaching  of  St.  Paul.  It  may  be  said  that  the  one  is  tenderly  and 
pathetically  human  where  the  other  is  a  system  of  Jewish  Scho- 
lasticism. But  even  if  we  allow  the  name  it  is  an  encouragement 
to  us  to  seek  for  the  simpler  meaning  of  much  that  we  may  be 
inclined  to  call  '  scholastic'  And  we  may  also  by  a  little  inspection 
discover  that  in  following  out  lines  of  thought  which  might  come 
under  this  description  St.  Paul  is  really  taking  up  the  threads  of 
grand  and  far-reaching  ideas  which  had  fallen  from  the  Prophets 
of  Israel  and  had  never  yet  been  carried  forwards  to  their  legitimate 
issues.  The  Son  of  Man  goes  straight,  as  none  other,  to  the 
heart  of  our  common  humanity;  but  that  does  not  exclude  the 
right  of  philosophizing  or  theologizing  on  the  facts  of  religion,  and 
that  is  surely  not  a  valueless  theology  which  has  such  facts  as  its 
foundation. 

What  has  been  thus  far  urged  may  serve  to  mitigate  the  apparent 
strangeness  of  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  Justification.  But  there  is 
much  more  to  be  said  when  we  come  to  take  that  doctrine  with 
its  context  and  to  put  it  in  its  proper  place  in  relation  to  the  whole 
system. 

In  the  first  place  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  doctrine  belongs 
strictly  speaking  only  to  the  beginning  of  the  Christian's  career. 
It  marks  the  initial  stage,  the  entrance  upon  the  way  of  life.  It 
was  pointed  out  a  moment  ago  that  in  the  Parable  of  the  Prodigal 
Son  the  curtain  drops  at  the  readmission  of  the  prodigal  to  his 
home.  We  have  no  further  glimpse  of  his  home  life.  To  isolate 
the  doctrine  of  Justification  is  to  drop  the  curtain  at  the  same 
place,  as  if  the  justified  believer  had  no  after-career  to  be  re- 
corded. 

But  St.  Paul  does  not  so  isolate  it  He  takes  it  up  and  follows 
every  step  in  that  after-career  till  it  ends  in  the  final  glory  (ots  di 
fSiKaiuxre,  tovtovs  koI  tdo^aat  viii.  30).  We  may  say  roughly  that 
the  first  five  chapters  of  the  Epistle  are  concerned  with  the  doctrine 
of  Justification,  in  itself  (i.  16 — iii.  30),  in  its  relation  to  leading 
features  of  the  Old  Covenant  (iii.  31 — iv.  25)  and  in  the  conse- 


4l  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [L  16,  17 

quences  which  flowed  from  it  (v.  1-2 1).  But  with  ch.  vi  anothei 
factor  is  introduced,  the  Mystical  Union  of  the  Christian  with  the 
Risen  Christ.  This  subject  is  prosecuted  through  three  chapters, 
vi-viii,  which  really  cover  (except  perhaps  the  one  section  vii. 
7-a5) — and  that  with  great  fulness  of  detail — the  whole  career 
of  the  Christian  subsequent  to  Justification.  We  shall  speak  ol 
the  teaching  of  those  chapters  when  we  come  to  them. 

It  is  no  doubt  an  arguable  question  how  far  ihese  later  chapten 
can  rightly  be  included  under  the  same  category  as  the  earlier. 
Dr.  Liddon  for  instance  summarizee  their  contents  as  '  Justification 
considered  subjectively  and  in  its  effects  upon  life  and  conduct. 
Moral  consequences  of  Justification.  (A)  The  Life  of  Justification 
and  sin  (vi.  1-14).  (B)  The  Life  of  Justification  and  the  Mosaic 
Law  (vi.  15 — vii.  as).  (C)  The  Life  of  Justification  and  the  work 
of  the  Holv  Spirit  (viii.).'  The  question  as  to  the  legitimacy  of 
this  description  hangs  together  with  the  question  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  term  Justification.  If  Justification  =y«jA'/»a  infusa  as  well 
as  imputaia^  then  we  need  not  dispute  the  bringing  of  chaps,  vi-viii 
under  that  category.  But  we  have  given  the  reasons  which  compel 
us  to  dissent  from  this  view.  The  older  Protestant  theologians  dis- 
tinguished between  Justification  and  Sanctification;  and  we  think 
that  they  were  right  both  in  drawing  this  distinction  and  in 
referring  chaps,  vi-viii  to  the  second  head  rather  than  to  the  first. 
On  the  whole  St.  Paul  does  keep  the  two  subjects  separate  from 
each  other ;  and  it  seems  to  us  to  conduce  to  clearness  of  thought 
to  keep  them  separate. 

At  the  same  time  we  quite  admit  that  the  point  at  issue  is  rathei 
one  of  clearness  of  thought  and  convenience  of  thinking  than 
anything  more  material.  Although  separate  the  two  subjects  run 
up  into  each  other  and  are  connected  by  real  links.  There  is  an 
organic  unity  in  the  Christian  life.  Its  different  parts  and  functions 
are  no  more  really  separable  than  the  different  parts  and  functions 
of  the  human  body.  And  in  this  respect  there  is  a  true  analogy 
between  body  and  soul.  When  Dr.  Liddon  concludes  his  note 
(p.  18)  by  saying,  'Justification  and  sanctification  may  be  dis- 
tinguished by  the  student,  as  are  the  arterial  and  nervous  systems 
in  the  human  body  ;  but  in  the  living  soul  they  are  coincident  and 
inseparaMe,'  we  may  cordially  agree.  The  distinction  between 
Justification  and  Sanctification  or  between  the  subjects  of  chaps. 
i.  16 — V,  and  chaps,  vi-viii  is  analogous  to  that  between  the  arterial 
and  nervous  systems;  it  holds  good  as  much  and  no  more — no 
more,  but  as  much. 

A  further  question  may  be  raised  which  the  advocates  of  the 
view  we  have  just  been  discussing  would  certainly  answer  in  the 
affirmative,  viz.  whether  we  might  not  regard  the  whole  working 
out  of  the  influences  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Christian  in  chaps 


FAILURE   OF  THE   GENTILES  39 

vi-viii,  as  yet  a  fifth  great  expression  of  the  Righteousness  of  God 
as  energizing  amongst  men.  We  too  think  that  it  might  be  so 
regarded.  It  stands  quite  on  a  hke  footing  with  other  manifes- 
tations of  that  Righteousness.  All  that  can  be  said  to  the  con- 
trary is  that  St.  Paul  himself  does  not  explicitly  give  it  this 
name. 


THB  UNIVEIlSAIi  NEED:    FAILUBB  OT 
THE  GENTHjES. 

I.  18-82.  This  revelation  of  Righteousness^  issuing  forth 
from  God  and  embracing  man,  has  a  dark  background  in 
that  other  revelation  of  Divine  Wrath  at  the  gross  wicked- 
ness of  men  (ver.  i8). 

There  are  three  stages:  (i)  the  knowledge  of  God  which 
all  might  have  from  the  character  imprinted  upon  Creation 
(w.  19-20)  ;  (2)  the  deliberate  ignoring  of  this  knowledge 
and  idle  speculation  ending  in  idolatry  (vv.  21-23)  •  (s)  '^^ 
judicial  surrender  of  those  who  provoke  God  by  idolatry  to 
every  kind  of  moral  degradation  (w.  24-32). 

**  This  message  of  mine  is  the  one  ray  of  hope  for  a  doomed 
world.  The  only  other  revelation,  which  we  can  see  all  around 
us,  is  a  revelation  not  of  the  Righteousness  but  of  the  Wrath 
of  God  breaking  forth — or  on  the  point  of  breaking  forth — from 
heaven,  like  the  lightning  from  a  thundercloud,  upon  all  the 
countless  offences  at  once  against  morals  and  religion  of  which 
mankind  are  guilty.  They  sufle  and  suppress  the  Truth  within 
them,  while  they  go  on  still  in  their  wrong-doing  (eV  aSiK.).  "  It  is 
not  merely  ignorance.  All  that  may  be  known  of  God  He  has 
revealed  in  their  hearts  and  consciences.  *"  For  since  the  world 
has  been  created  His  attributes,  though  invisible  in  themselves, 
are  traced  upon  the  fabric  of  the  visible  creation.  I  mean,  His 
Power  to  which  there  is  no  beginning  and  those  other  attributes 
which  we  sum  up  under  the  common  name  of  Divinity. 

So  plain  is  all  this  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  escape  the 
responsibility  of  ignoring  it.  "  The  guilt  of  men  lay  not  in  their 
ignorance;  for  they  had  a  knowledge  of  God.  But  in  spite  of 
that  knowledge,  they  did  not  pay  the  homage  due  to  Him  as 


40  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [L  18-82. 

God :  they  gave  Him  no  thanks ;  but  they  gave  the  rein  to  futile 
speculations ;  they  lost  ail  intelligence  of  truth,  and  their  moral 
sense  was  obscured.  •  While  they  boasted  of  their  wisdom,  they 
were  turned  to  folly.  "In  place  of  the  majesty  of  the  Eternal 
God,  they  worshipped  some  fictitious  representation  of  weak  and 
perishable  man.  of  bird,  of  quadruped  or  reptile. 

•*  Such  were  the  beginnings  of  idolatry.  And  as  a  punishment 
for  it  God  gave  them  up  to  moral  corruption,  leaving  them  to 
follow  their  own  depraved  desires  wherever  they  might  lead,  even 
to  the  polluting  of  their  bodies  by  shameful  intercourse.  "  Repro- 
bates, who  could  abandon  the  living  and  true  God  for  a  sham 
divinity,  and  render  divine  honours  and  ritual  observance  to  the 
creature,  neglecting  the  Creator  (Blessed  be  His  name  for  ever  I). 

"Because  of  this  idolatry,  I  repeat,  God  gave  them  up  to  the 
vilest  [passions.  Women  behaved  like  monsters  who  had  forgotten 
their  sex.  *'  And  men,  forsaking  the  natural  use,  wrought  shame 
with  their  own  kind,  and  received  in  their  physical  degradation 
a  punishment  such  as  they  deserved. 

*"  They  refused  to  make  God  their  study :  and  as  they  rejected 
Him,  so  He  rejected  them,  giving  them  over  to  that  abandoned 
mind  which  led  them  into  acts  disgraceful  to  them  as  men: 
*•  replete  as  they  were  with  every  species  of  wrong-doing;  with 
active  wickedness,  with  selfish  greed,  with  thorough  inward  de- 
pravity :  their  hearts  brimming  over  with  envy,  murderous  thoughts, 
quarrelsomeness,  treacherous  deceit,  rank  ill-nature;  backbiters, 
'-*  slanderers ;  in  open  defiance  of  God,  insolent  in  act,  arrogant  in 
thought,  braggarts  in  word  towards  man ;  skilful  plotters  of  evil, 
bad  sons,  '*  dull  of  moral  apprehension,  untrue  to  their  word, 
void  of  natural  duty  and  of  humanity :  ^'^  Reprobates,  who,  knowing 
full  well  the  righteous  sentence  by  which  God  denounces  death 
upon  all  who  act  thus,  are  not  content  with  doing  the  things  which 
He  condemns  themselves  but  abet  and  applaud  those  who  practise 
them. 

18.  There  is  general  agreement  as  to  the  structure  of  this 
part  of  the  Epistle.  St.  Paul  has  just  stated  what  the  Gospel 
is;  he  now  goes  on  to  show  the  necessity  for  such  a  Gospel 
The  world  is  lost  without  it.  Following  what  was  for  a  Jew 
the  obvious  division,  proof  is  given  of  a  complete  break-down  in 
regard  to  righteousness  (i)  en  the  part  of  the  Gentiles,  (ii)  on  the 


I.  18.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  4I 

part  of  the  Jews.  The  summary  conclusion  of  the  whole  section 
i.  18 — iii.  20  is  given  in  the  two  verses  iii.  19,  20:  it  is  that  the 
whole  world,  Gentile  and  Jew  alike,  stands  guilty  before  God. 
Thus  the  way  is  prepared  for  a  further  statement  of  the  means  of 
removing  that  state  of  guilt  offered  in  the  Gospel. 

Marcion  retained  ver.  18,  omitting  @eov,  perhaps  through  some  accident 
on  his  own  part  or  in  the  MS.  which  he  copied  (Zahn,  tii  sup.  p.  516  ;  the 
nther  important  cursive  47  has  the  same  oiDission  i.  Therest  of  the  chapter 
with  iL  I  he  seems  to  have  excised.  He  may  have  been  jealous  of  this 
trenchant  attack  upon  the  Gentiles. 

*AiroKoXu'irT«Tot.  How  is  this  revelation  made  ?  Is  the  reference 
to  the  Final  Judgement,  or  to  the  actual  condition,  as  St.  Paul 
saw  it,  of  the  heathen  world  ?  Probably  not  to  either  exclusively, 
but  to  both  in  close  combination.  The  condition  of  the  world 
seems  to  the  Apostle  ripe  for  judgement;  he  sees  around  him 
on  all  hands  signs  of  the  approaching  end.  In  the  latter  half 
of  this  chapter  St.  Paul  lays  stress  on  these  signs :  he  develops 
the  ajroKoXvfrrcToi,  present.  In  the  first  half  of  the  next  chapter 
he  brings  out  the  final  doom  to  which  the  signs  are  pointing. 
Observe  the  links  which  connect  the  two  sections :  amoKa\v-aT(rai 
i.  18  ^  airoKaXtn^tc  iL  5  >  ^P)"7  ^  '^r  i'*  5)  ^  >  a.vanok6f]rot  \.  20, 
ii.  I. 

6pY^|  eeou.  (i)  In  the  O.  T.  the  conception  of  the  Wrath  of 
God  has  special  reference  to  the  Covenant-relation.  It  is  inflicted 
either  (a)  upon  Israelites  for  gross  breach  of  the  Covenant  (Lev. 
X.  I,  a  Nadab  and  Abihu ;  Num.  xvi.  33,  46  flf.  Korah ;  xxv.  3 
Baal-peor),  or  {p)  upon  non-Israelites  for  oppression  of  the  Chosen 
People  (Jer.  L  11-17;  Ezek.  xxxvi.  5).  (2)  In  the  prophetic 
writmgs  this  infliction  of  *  wrath'  is  gradually  concentrated  upon 
a  great  Day  of  Judgement,  the  Day  of  the  Lord  (Is.  ii.  10-22,  &c. ; 
Jer.  XXX.  7,  8 ;  Joel  iii.  12  ff. ;  Obad.  8  flF. ;  Zeph.  iii.  8  flf.).  (3)  Hence 
the  N.  T.  use  seems  to  be  mainly,  if  not  altogether,  eschatological : 
cf.  Matt.  iii.  7;  i  Thess.  i.  10;  Rom.  ii.  5,  v.  9;  Rev.  vi.  16,  17. 
Even  I  Thess.  ii.  16  does  not  seem  to  be  an  exception:  the  state 
of  the  Jews  seems  to  St.  Paul  to  be  only  a  foretaste  of  the  final 
woes.  See  on  this  subject  esp.  Ritschl,  Recht/erttgung  u.  Versoh- 
nung,  ii.  124  ff.  ed.  a. 

Similarly  Euthym.-Zig.  'KwomaXivrtrtu  m.r.X.  iv  fifii.ip<f  St]\ov6ti  Kplaews. 
We  must  remember  however  that  St.  Paul  regarded  the  Day  of  Judgement  as 
near  at  hand. 

iy  dSiKio, '  living  in  unrighteousness  fAe  wht'le'  Moule. 

naT€x6vTbiy.  Karex^eiv  =  (i)  '  to  hold  fast'  Lk.  viii.  15 ;  i  Cor.  xi.  a, 
XV.  t,  &c. ;  (ii)  'to  hold  down,'  'hold  in  check'  a  Thess.  ii.  6,  7, 
where  to  Kartxov,  6  KaTfxuv=^the  force  of  [Roman]  Law  and  Order 
by  which  Antichrist  is  restrained:    similarly  here  but  in  a  bad 


4t  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [L  18-aO. 

sense;   it  is  the  truth  whicu  is  'held  down,'  hindered,  thwarted, 
checked  in  its  free  and  expansive  operation. 

19.  SkJti  :  always  in  Gk.  Test.  =  '  because.'  There  are  three  uses : 
(i)  for  iC  5  Ti  =  propter  quod,  quamobrem,  '  wlierefore,'  introducing 
a  consequence ;  (ii)  for  i^ta  roOro  ori  =  propterea  quod,  or  quia, 
'  because,'  giving  a  reason  for  what  has  gone  before ;  (iii)  from 
Herod,  downwards,  but  esp.  in  later  Gk.  =  on,  '  that.' 

t6  yywn6y.  This  is  a  similar  case  to  that  of  dodajdria-oiiai  above  : 
yvwaros  in  Scripture  generally  (both  LXX  and  N.  T.)  means  as 
a  rule  'known'  (e.g.  Acts  i.  19,  ii.  14,  xv.  18,  &c.) ;  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  may  not  be  used  in  the  stricter  sense  of 
'  knowable,'  '  what  may  be  known '  ('  the  intelligible  nature ' 
T.  H.  Green,  T/:e  Wiinest  of  God,  p.  4)  where  the  context  favours 
that  sense :  so  Orig.  Theoph.  Weiss.  Gif.,  against  Chrys.  Mey. 
De  W.  Va.  There  is  the  more  room  for  this  stricter  use  here 
as  the  word  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  St.  Paul  and  the  induction 
does  not  cov^er  his  writings. 

Iv  auTois,  '  within  them,'  St.  Paul  repeatedly  uses  this  preposi- 
tion where  we  might  expect  a  different  one  (cf.  Gal.  i.  16;  Rom. 
ii.  15) :  any  revelation  must  pass  through  the  human  conscious- 
ness :  so  Mey.  Go.  Oltr.  Lips.,  not  exactly  as  Gif.  ('  in  their  very 
nature  and  constitution  as  men ')  or  Moule  ('  among  ihera).' 

Compare  also  Luther,  Table  Talk,  Aph.  dxlix  :  '  Melanchthon  discoursing 
with  Luther  touching  the  prophets,  who  c<  ntinually  boast  thus :  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,"  asked  whether  God  in  person  spoke  with  them  or  no.  Luther 
replied  :  "  They  were  very  holy,  spiritual  people,  who  seriously  contemplated 
npon  holy  and  divine  things:  therefore  God  spake  with  them  in  tlieir 
consciences,  which  the  prophets  held  as  sure  and  certain  revelations.'" 

It  is  however  possible  that  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  wider 
Hebraistic  nse  of  iv,  as  in  the  phrase  \a\iiv  tv  nvi  (Habak.  ii.  i  &Tro<jKo- 
wtvaoj  TOO  liiiv  ri  KaXrjafi  iv  i^ioi:  cf.  Zech.  i.  9,  13,  14,  19 ;  ii.  3  ;  iv.  4.  5  ; 
V.  5,  10 ;  vi.  4;  also  4  Ezr.  v.  15  angelus  qui  loquebatur  in  me.  In  that 
case  too  much  stress  must  not  be  laid  on  the  preposition  as  describing  an 
internal  proce<5s.  At  the  same  time  the  analogy  of  h.aKtXv  kv  does  not  cover 
the  very  explicit  (pavtpov  iartv  iv  avrois :  and  we  must  remember  that 
St.  Paul  is  writing  as  one  who  had  himself  an  'abundance  of  revelations' 
(a  Cor.  xii.  7),  and  sses  the  language  which  corresponded  to  his  owa 
experience. 

20.  dir6  RTi<rewt  R^vfiOM.  Gif.  is  inclined  to  translate  this  '  from 
the  created  universe,'  '  creation '  (in  the  sense  of  '  things  created ') 
being  regarded  as  the  source  of  knowledge :  he  alleges  Vulg. 
a  creatura  mundi.  But  it  is  not  clear  that  Vulg.  was  intended 
to  have  this  sense ;  and  the  parallel  phrases  an-'  apxh^  Koafwv 
(Matt.  xxiv.  21),  dno  KUTo^nXfis  Kon-fjMv  (Matt.  XXV.  34  ;  Luke  xi.  50; 
Rev.  xiii.  8  ;  xvii.  8),  an  dpxfit  icria-tvs  (Mark  x.  6 ;  xiii.  19 ;  2  Pet. 
iii.  4),  seem  to  show  that  the  force  of  the  prep,  is  rather  temporal, 
'st'nce  the  creation  of  the  universe'  (<i<^"  oi  x^'"^'>v  6  oparns  iKTioB^ 
aAvfios  £uih}m.-Zig.).     The  idea  of  knowledge  being  derived  fron: 


I.  20.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  49 

the  fabric  of  the  created  world  is  in  any  case  contained  in  the 

context. 

KTi(rcw«:   see  Lft.  Col.  p.  214.     nrlms  has  three  senses:    (i)  the 

act  of  creating  (as  here) ;  (ii)  the  result  of  that  act,  whether  (a)  the 
aggregate  of  created  things  (Wisd.  v.  18  ;  xvi.  24 ;  Col.  i.  15  and 
probably  Rom.viii.  19  ff.);  or  (3)  a  creature,  a  single  created  thing 
(Heb.  iv.  13,  and  perhaps  Rom.  viii.  39,  q.  v.). 

Kadoparai:  commonly  explained  to  mean  'are  clearly  seen* 
{Kara  with  intensive  force,  as  in  Karafiavdavfiv^  Karavotlv) ;  go  Fri. 
Grm.-Thay.  Gif.  &c.  It  may  however  relate  rather  to  the  direction 
of  sight,  '  are  surveyed,'  '  contemplated '  ('  are  under  observation  * 
Moule).  Both  senses  are  represented  in  the  two  places  in  which 
the  word  occurs  in  LXX :  (i)  in  Job  x.  4  ^  Sxrn-tp  /Sporos  6pq  Kadop^t ; 

(ii)  in  Num.  ZXiv.  S  BaKaap.  .  .  .  Kadop^  Tov  *l<Tpar)\  farpaTOTrtdfVKOTa 
Kara  (pvXag. 

diSios :  aliiorrjf  is  a  Divine  attribute  in  Wisd.  ii.  33  (v.  1.,  see 
below);  cf.  also  Wisd.  vii.  26  (purbs  ai^iov,  Jude  6. 

The  argument  from  the  nature  of  the  created  world  to  the 
character  of  its  Author  is  as  old  as  the  Psalter,  Job  and  Isaiah : 
Pss.  xix.  I  ;  xciv.  9;  cxliii.  5;  Is.  xlii.  5;  xlv.  i8;  Job  xii.  9; 
xxvi.  14;  xxxvi.  24  fF. ;  Wisd.  ii.  23 ;  xiii.  i,  5,  &c.  It  is  common 
to  Greek  thought  as  well  as  Jewish :  Arist.  De  Mundo  6  a6i(jipr\rot 
mt  avTu>v  T&v  epyuv  Otapeirai  [o  Bfoj]  (Lid.).  This  argument  is  very 
fully  set  forth  by  Philo,  De  Praem.  et  Poen.  7  (Mang.  ii.  415). 
After  describing  the  order  and  beauty  of  Nature  he  goes  on: 
'  Admiring  and  being  struck  with  amazement  at  these  things,  they 
arrived  at  a  conception  consistent  with  what  they  had  seen,  that 
all  these  beauties  so  admirable  in  their  arrangement  have  not  come 
into  being  spontaneously  {ovk  dnavTopaTiadivra  yeyovtv),  but  are  the 
work  of  some  Maker,  the  Creator  of  the  world,  and  that  there  must 
needs  be  a  Providence  {npovoiav);  because  it  is  a  law  of  nature 
that  the  Creative  Power  (to  nfnoirjKos)  must  take  care  of  that  which 
has  come  into  being.  But  these  admirable  men  superior  as  they 
are  to  all  others,  as  I  said,  advanced  from  below  upwards  as  if 
by  a  kind  of  celestial  ladder  guessing  at  the  Creator  from  His 
works  by  probable  inference  (ola  8id  rtvos  ovpaviov  KkifiaKos  dn-i  t6i» 

((rytof  ctKort  Xo-ytcr^i^  trroxairapfvoi  rbv  !iTjpt.ovpy6v), 

d€i($TT)s :  BfOTTjs  =  Divine  Personality,  dfiorrjs  =  Divine  nature  and 
properties :  dCvafus  is  a  single  attribute,  ^«idr?;y  is  a  summary  term 
for  those  other  attributes  which  constitute  Divinity :  the  word 
appears  in  Biblical  Gk.  hrst  in  Wisd.  xviii.  9  rbv  ttjs  Ofnanjros  vo/mp 
fv  ofiovoia  biidtvro. 

Didymus  {Trin.  ii.  11 ;  Migne,  P.  G.  xxxix.  664)  accuses  the  heretics  of 
reading  &f6Tr}s  here,  and  it  is  found  in  one  MS.,  P. 

It  is  certainly  somewhat  strange  that  so  general  a  term  as  9(i6Ttjs  should 
be  combined  with  a  term  denoting  a  particular  attribute  like  Svva/ut.  To 
meet  this  diiificalty  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  narrow  down  6ti6Tip  to 


44  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [I,  20,  21 

the  signification  of  Wfo,  the  divine  glory  or  •plendonr.  It  is  fuggested 
that  this  word  was  not  used  because  it  seemed  inadequate  to  describe  the 
uniqueness  of  the  Divine  Nature  (Rogge,  Die  Anschauungen  d.  Ap.  Paulus 
von  d.  religids-sittl.  Charait.  d,  Heidentutns,  Leipzig,  i888,  p.  lo  £,) 

els  T&  fivax  :  th  t6  denotes  here  not  direct  and  primary  purpose 
but  indirect,  secondary  or  conditional  purpose.  God  did  not 
design  that  man  should  sin ;  but  He  did  design  that  if  they  sinned 
they  should  be  without  excuse :  on  His  part  all  was  done  to 
give  them  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  Himself.  Burton  however 
{Moods  and  Tenses,  §  411)  takes  tls  to  here  as  expressing  not 
purpose  but  result,  because  of  the  causal  clause  which  follows. 
'  This  clause  could  be  forced  to  an  expression  of  purpose  only  by 
supposing  an  ellipsis  of  some  such  expression  as  kcli  ovtws  elalv, 
and  seems  therefore  to  require  that  fh  t6  tlvai  be  interpreted  as 
*  expressing  result.'  There  is  force  in  this  reasoning,  though  the  use 
of  (U  TO  for  mere  result  is  not  we  believe  generally  recognized. 

21.  ^So^ao-af.  5o|afa)  is  one  of  the  words  which  show  a  deepened 
significance  in  their  religious  and  Biblical  use.  In  classical  Greek 
In  accordance  with  the  slighter  sense  of  ho^a  it  merely  =  '  to  form 
an  opinion  about '  (So|a^d/tx,€vos  aStKos,  *  held  to  be  unrighteous, ' 
Plato,  Hep.  588  B)  ;  then  later  with  a  gradual  rise  of  signification 

'  to  do  honour  to  '  or  '  praise '  [l-rr   aperfj  8e8o|acr|U,€vot  av8pe<;   Polyb. 

VI.  liii.  id).  And  so  in  LXX  and  N.  T.  with  a  varying  sense  accord- 
ing to  the  subject  to  whom  it  is  applied:  (i)  Of  the  honour  done  by 
man  to  man  (Esth.  iii.  I  (86^aa-€v  6  ^aa-iXevs  'Apra^ep^rjs  'A/idv); 
(ii)  Of  that  which  is  done  by  man  to  God  (Lev.  x.  3  iv  irdayj  r^ 
avvaycoyf]  8o^aa6rj(Tonai) ;  (iii)  Of  the  glory  bcstowed  on  man  by  God 
(Rom.  viii.  30  ots  8«  (biKalaa-f,  TovTovs  km  (do^aae)  ]  (Iv)  In  a  sense 
specially  characteristic  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  of  the  visible 
manifestation  of  the  glory,  whether  of  the  Father  by  His  own  act 
(Jo.  xii.  28),  or  of  the  Son  by  His  own  act  (Jo.  xi.  4),  or  of  the  Son 
by  the  act  of  the  Father  (Jo.  vii.  39;  xii.  16,  23,  &c.),  or  of  the 
Father  by  the  Incarnate  Son  (Jo.  xiii.  31 ;  xiv.  13 ;  xviL  i,  4,  Ac). 
^|jiaTai(f50T|o-ai',  '  were  frustrated,'  '  rendered  futile.'  In  LXX  ra 
naraia  =  '  idols '  as  '  things  of  nought.'  The  two  words  occur 
together  in  2  Kings  Xvii.  15  km  fnoptidrja-av  oiritrm  t5>v  fiaraltav  «u 
fpaTai<i>dri(Tav. 

SiaXoyioiJiois :  as  usually  in  LXX  and  N.  T.  in  a  bad  sense  of 
'  perverse,  self-willed,  reasonings  or  speculations '  (cf.  Hatch,  £ss. 
in  Bibl  Gk.  p.  8). 

Comp.  Enoch  xcix.  8,  9  *  And  they  will  become  godless  by  reason  of  the 

foolishness  of  their  hearts,  and  their  eyes  will  be  blinded  through  the  fear  of 
their  hearts  and  through  visions  in  their  dreams.  Through  these  they  will 
become  godless  and  fearful,  because  they  work  all  their  works  in  a  lie  and 
they  worship  a  stone.' 

KapSia  :  the  most  comprehensive  term  for  the  human  faculties, 


I.  21-24.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  45 

the  seat  of  feeling  (Rom.  ix.  a  ;  x.  i) ;  will  (i  Cor.  iv.  5 ;  vii.  37  ; 
cf.  Rom.  xvi.  18);  thoughts  (Rom.  x.  6,  8).  Physically  Kapdia 
belongs  to  the  anXdyxva  (2  Cor.  vi.  n,  12);  the  conception  of  its 
functions  being  connected  with  the  Jewish  idea  that  life  resided  in 
the  blood :  morally  it  is  neutral  in  its  character,  so  that  it  may  be 
either  the  home  of  lustful  desires  (Rom.  i.  24),  or  of  the  Spirit 
(Rom.  V.  6). 

23.  i]XXa|oi'  ip :  an  imitation  of  a  Heb.  construction :  cf  Ps. 
cvi.  (cv.)  20  ;  also  for  the  expression  Jer.  ii.  1 1  (Del  ad  loc.)  &c. 

%6^(xv  =  'manifested  perfection.'     See  on  iii.  23. 

Comp.  with  this  verse  Philo,  Vit.  Mas.  iii.  20  (Mang.  ii.  i6i)  ot  rbv 
AXrjOri  6ihv  icaTaXin6t>Tes  roij  if/ivSwvvixovs  eSTj^iovpyrjaav,  (pdaprais  Kal  ytvrjTcui 
ovffiais  T^v  Tov  dyei/riTov  Hal  d.<p6apTov  -apoaprjaiv  kvicp-q^iaavTa  :  also  Dt  Ebrut. 
a8  (Mang.  i.  374)  irap'  h  koI  dtoirXaartiv  dp^antvos  dya\fxa.T<uy  Kal  ^oavwv  Kai 
ikKaiv  fivp'uuv  diptSpv/jiaTOJV  v\cus  itatpopois  rtrtxi'iTfVfiivcuv  KariTrATjae  Trjv 
oIkov fji.ivjp>  .  .  ,  Kareipydaaro  to  iyavriov  ov  irpoa(S6i{rjatv,  dvTi  uaioTrjTot 
dai^fiav — ri  ydp  woKvOfov  fv  rats  raiv  dippovaiv  if/vxcus  dOtdrTjs,  Kal  6(ov  rifirjs 
iXoyovffiv  ol  TCi  Oinjrd  9(iw<ravres — ofi  ovk  t^rjpKiafv  ijKiov  Kal  atXijvrj^  .  .  . 
tlKovai  SiaiT\daaa6ai,  dW'  i]5i)  Koi  ikdyatt  (uoit  Kal  <pvToit  r^t  rvr  affQapfrvy 
rin%%  fitriSoaaw. 

24.  irop^uKei' :  three  times  repeated,  here,  in  ver.  26  and  in 
ver.  28.  These  however  do  not  mark  so  many  distinct  stages  in 
the  punishment  of  the  heathen ;  it  is  all  one  stage.  Idolatry  leads 
to  moral  corruption  which  may  take  different  forms,  but  in  all  is 
a  proof  of  God's  displeasure.  Gif  has  proved  that  the  force  of 
napiiutKtv  is  not  merely  permt'sst've  (Chrys.  Theodrt.  Euthym.-Zig.*), 
through  God  permitting  men  to  have  their  way;  or  privative^ 
through  His  withdrawing  His  gracious  aid  ;  hwi  judicial,  the  appro- 
priate punishment  of  their  defection  :  it  works  automatically,  one 
evil  leading  to  another  by  natural  sequence. 

This  is  a  Jewish  doctrine :  Pirqi  Aboth,  iv.  a  *  Every  fiilfilment  of  duty  it 
rewarded  by  another,  and  every  transgression  is  punished  by  another  * ;  Shab- 
bath  104'  '  Whosoever  strives  to  keep  himself  pure  receives  the  power  to  do 
so,  and  whosoever  will  be  impure  to  him  is  it  [the  door  of  vice]  thrown 
open  ' ;  Jems.  Talmud,  '  He  who  erects  a  fence  round  himself  is  fenced,  and 
he  who  gives  himself  over  is  given  over '  (from  Delitzsch,  Notes  on  Heb. 
Version  of  Ep.  to  Rom.).  The  Jews  held  that  the  heathen  because  of  their 
rejection  of  the  Law  were  wholly  abandoned  by  God  :  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
withdrawn  from  them  (Weber,  Altsyn.  ThtoL  p.  66). 

4r  ofirois  ^<  A  B C D*,  several  cursives;  tviavro'iv  D°EFGKLP, 
&c.,  printed  editions  of  Fathers,  Orig.  Chrys.  Theodrt.,  Vulg.  (ut 
contumeliis  adficiant  corpora  sua  in  ipsis).     The  balance  is  strongly 

•  Similarly  Adrian,  an  Antiochene  writer  (c.  440  A.D.)  in  his  Maaywyij  tU 
rds  Odai  ypacpds,  a,  classified  collection  of  figures  and  modes  of  speech  em- 
ployed in  Holy  Scripture,  refers  this  verse  to  the  head  Tfjv  i^rl  rStv  dvBpaimvttw 
KaKwv  avyx^pnaty  roi  Ofov  in  tpS^iv  aitrov  Kiiiw  inubi^  KmhS/oai  imd4^tvol, 
9OVT0  06  notu. 


46  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [l.  24-2a 

in  favour  of  airoU.     With  this  reading  dTtfjiii(cad(u  is  pass.,  and  4t 
avrols  =  '  among  them  ' :  with  ev  tavToU,  arifK  is  mid.  (as  Vulg.). 

On  the  fonni,  avroO,  avrev  *nd  iavrov  le*  Buttmann,  Gr.  of  N.  T.  Gh.  (tr. 
Thayer)  p.  li  i  ;  Hort,  Introd.,  Notet  on  Orthography,  p.  144. 

In  N.  T.  Greek  there  is  a  tendency  to  the  disuse  of  ttrong  reflexive  form*. 
Simple  possession  is  most  commonly  expressed  by  avTovy  avrrft,  &c. :  only 
where  the  reflexive  character  is  emphasized  (not  merely  tuum,  but  suum 
ifsius)  is  iavTov  nied  (^hencc  the  importance  of  such  phrases  as  T(iv  iavrov 
viic  vift^at  Rom.  viii.  3).  Some  critics  have  denied  the  existence  in  the 
N.  T.  of  the  aspirated  avrov  :  and  it  is  true  that  there  is  no  certain  proof  of 
aspiration  (such  as  the  occurrence  before  it  of  ovx  or  an  elided  preposition; 
in  early  MSS.  breathings  are  rare),  but  in  a  few  strong  cases,  where  the 
omission  of  the  aspirate  would  be  against  all  Greek  nsage,  it  ia  retained  bjr 
WH.  (e.g.  in  Jo.  ii.  34;  Lk.  xziii.  la). 

25.  oTTiKct :  iaris,  often  called  '  rel.  of  quality,'  (i)  denotes 
a  single  object  with  reference  to  its  kind,  its  nature,  its  capacities, 
its  character  ('  one  who,'  '  being  of  such  a  kind  as  that ') ;  and  thus 
(ii)  it  frequently  makes  the  adjectival  sentence  assign  a  cause  for 
the  main  sentence  :  it  is  used  like  gut,  or  quippe  qui,  with  subj. 

T^K  dXii0€ioK  .  .  .  Tu  \|»«u'8ev :  abstr.  for  concrete,  for  rhv  aktfiaiiP 

Qfov  .  .  .  role  ^tvdtcri  Beois,  cf.  I  TheSS.  i.  9. 

i(T€^6.<j^T\va.v.  This  use  of  <Tt^dCfa6<u  is  an  iira^  Xty6fupop ;  the 
common  form  is  af^eadai  (see  Va.). 

jtaph  t6k  KTicroiTo  =  not  merely  '  more  than  the  Creator '  (a  force 
which  the  preposition  might  bear),  but  'passing  by  the  Creator 
altogether,'  '  to  the  neglect  of  the  Creator.' 

Cf.  Philo,  De  Mund.  Ofif.  a  (Mangey,  L  a)  rw\t  f^f  riw  Klaitar  luXXam  % 
rir  Ko<JnoiToi6y  Oavft/iaayrfs  (Loesner). 

Ss  ifnir  eSkoyr]T6%.  Doxologies  like  this  are  of  constant  occurrence 
in  the  Talmud,  and  are  a  spontaneous  expression  of  devout  feeling 
called  forth  either  by  the  thought  of  God's  adorable  perfections  or 
sometimes  (as  here)  by  the  forced  mention  of  that  which  reverence 
would  rather  hide. 

27.  dTroXauPdfon^t :  ajroX.=  (i)  '  to  receive  back '  (as  in  Luke  ri. 
34) ;  (ii)  '  to  receive  one's  dw '  (as  in  Luke  xxiii.  41) ;  and  so  here. 

28.  iSoKifiocraK :  8o«^C^»  =  (i)  'to  test'  (i  Cor.  iii.  13,  &c.); 
(ii)  '  to  approve  after  testing'  (so  here;  and  ii.  x8  ;  xiv.  22,  &c.); 
similarly  dSdw/iof  s=  '  rejected  after  testing,'  '  reprobates.' 

!•'  ^iriyKitfaci :  hriyvaxris  =  '  q/Her  knowledge ' :  hence  (i)  recogni- 
tion (vb.  ='to  recognize,'  Matt.  vii.  16;  xvii.  la,  &c.);  (ii)' ad- 
vanced '  or  '  further  knowledge,'  *  full  knowledge.'  See  esp.  Sp. 
Comm.  on  i  Cor.  xiii.  la  ;  Lft.  on  Phil.  i.  9. 

rouv  =  the  reasoning  faculty,  esp.  as  concerned  with  moral 
action,  the  intellectual  part  of  conscience :  voiis  and  <rvp«itlr}(Tis  are 
combmed  in  Tit.  i.  15  :  poCs  may  be  either  bad  or  good ;  for  the 
good  sense  se«  Rom.  xiL  a  ;  £ph.  iv.  23. 


C.  28-30.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILBS  47 

tA  Ka9i]Koi^ra:  a  technical  term  with  the  Stoics,  'what  is  morally 

fitting ' ;  cf.  also  a  Mace.  vi.  4. 

29.  We  must  beware  of  attempting  to  force  the  catalogue 
which  follows  into  a  logical  order,  though  here  and  there  a  certain 
amount  of  grouping  is  noticeable.  The  first  four  are  general 
terms  for  wickedness ;  then  follows  a  group  headed  by  the  allitera- 
tive i>Q6vov,  ^6vou,  with  other  kindred  vices  ;  then  two  forms  of 
backbiting;  then  a  group  in  descending  climax  of  sins  of  arro- 
gance ;  then  a  somewhat  miscellaneous  assortment,  in  which  again 
alliteration  plays  a  part. 

dSiKia :  a  comprehensive  term,  including  all  that  follows. 
rtopveia :  om.  i<)  A  B  C  K ;   probably  suggested  by  similarity  in 

sound  to  novr)piq, 

irocTjpia  :  contains  the  idea  of  *  active  mischief  (Hatch,  Bibl.  Gk. 
p.  77  f. ;  Trench,  Syn.  p.  303).  Dr.  T.  K.  Abbott  {Essays,  p.  97) 
rather  contests  the  assignment  of  this  specific  meaning  to  irovr)pia  ; 
and  no  doubt  the  use  of  the  word  is  extremely  wide :  but  where 
definition  is  needed  it  is  in  this  direction  that  it  must  be  sought. 

KaKia :  as  compared  with  novrjpia  denotes  rather  inward  vicious 
ness  of  disposition  (Trench,  Syn.  p.  36  f.). 

The  MSS.  vary  as  to  the  order  of  the  three  words  vovrjplt^  n\tovt(l<f,  neutlif, 
WH.  iexf  RV.  retain  this  order  with  BL,  &c.,  Hard.  Arm.,  Bas.  Greg. 
Nyss.  «/. :  Tisch.  WH.  marg.  read  rovrjp.  kok.  irXtov.  with  KA,  Pesh.  ml-  : 
WH.  marg.  also  recognizes  kok.  irovrjp.  ir\(ov.  with  C,  Boh.  al. 

irXtovegi'qi.  On  the  attempt  which  is  sometimes  made  to  give  to  this  word 
the  sense  of  '  impurity '  see  Lft.  on  Col.  iii.  5.  The  word  itself  means  only 
•  selfish  greed,'  which  may  however  be  exhibited  under  circumstances  where 
impurity  lies  near  at  hand:  e.g.  in  i  Thess.  iv.  6  irXeoviKTtiv  is  used  of 
Adultery,  but  rather  as  a  wrong  done  to  another  than  as  a  vice. 

ROKOTiGctas :  the  tendency  to  put  the  worst  construction  upon 
everything  (Arist.  RheL  ii.  13;  cf.  Trench,  Syn.  p.  38).  The  word 
occurs  several  times  in  3  and  4  Maccabees. 

30.  »|/i9upiaT<£s,  KOTaXdXous.  The  idea  of  secresy  is  contained  in 
the  first  of  these  words,  not  in  the  second:  ■^t^.  susurraiores 
Cypr.  Lucif.  Ambrstr.  susurrones  Aug.  Vulg. ;  Karak.  deiractores 
Cypr.  Aug.  Vulg.,  detrectatores  {detract-)  Lucif.  Ambrstr.  al. 

OcooTuyeis  :  may  be  either  (i)  passive,  Deo  odibiles  Vulg. :  so 
Mey.  Weiss  Fri.  Oltr.  Lips.  Lid.  ;  on  the  ground  that  this  is  the 
constant  meaning  in  class.  Gk.,  where  the  word  is  not  uncommon ; 
or  (ii)  active,  Dei  osores  =  abhorrentes  Deo  Cypr. :  so  Euthym.-Zig. 
(rovr  rhv  0fAi»  \j.iijovvra<i),  Tyn.  and  Other  English  versions  not  derived 
from  Vulg.,  also  Gif.  Go.  Va.,  with  some  support  from  Clem.  Rom. 
ad  Cor.  xxxv.  5,  who  in  paraphrasing  this  passage  uses  ^eoorvyta 
clearly  with  an  active  signification,  though  he  follows  it  by  orvyT/Tol 
T^  e»<p.  As  one  among  a  catalogue  of  vices  this  would  give  the 
more  pointed  sense,  imless  we  might  suppose  that  ^coorvyttr  had 
come  to  have  a  meaning  like  oiu*  '  desperadoes.'     The  three  terms 


4*  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [l    80-8& 

which  follow  remind  us  of  the  bullies  and  braggarts  ef  the  Eliza- 
bethan stage.  For  the  distinction  between  them  see  Trench,  Syn, 
p.  95  ff. 

It  is  well  preserved  in  the  Cyprianic  Latin,  iniuriosi,  tuperbi,  iactantti  mi. 

For  the  last  phrase  Lucif.  has  gloriantti  ;  either  would  be  better  than  the 
common  rendering  tiatos  (Cod.  Clarom.  Cod.  Boem.  Ambrstr.  Aug.  Vulg.). 

tiTr€pTi(^avos.  Mayor  (on  Jas.  iv.  6)  derives  this  word  from  the  adjectival 
form  viTfpos  (rather  than  vntp  Trench)  and  <paiyoj,  comparing  i\a<pT}$6\os  from 
IXaipot  and  /SdXXw :  he  explains  it  as  meaning  '  conspicnons  beyond  others,' 
♦  outshining  them,'  and  so  '  proud,'  '  haughty  ' :  see  his  note,  and  the  cxx. 
there  quoted  from  Ecclus.  and  Pss.  Sol. 

31.  dcrw€Tovs :  davvuSriTovt  ('  without  conscience  ')  Euthym.-Zig.  How 
closely  the  two  words  avvtais  and  awtiSriats  are  related  will  appear  from 
Polyb.  XVIII.  xxvi.  13  01  Sttj  ovrwt  oCrt  fxaprvf  iarl  (popepds  ovrt  Karrjyopos 
Sftvbs  OK  1)  ffvvtfTis  ^  iyKaroiKOvaa  reus  tKaaroiv  if/vxais.  [But  is  not  this 
a  gloss,  on  the  text  of  Polyb.  t     It  is  found  in  the  margin  of  Cod.  Urbin.] 

iauyQirovi,  '  false  to  their  engagement* '  (o-w^^/cat) ;  cf.  Jer.  iii.  7, 

dair<5i'8ous  after  aaropyovt  (Trench,  Syn.  p.  95  ff.)  it  added 
from  2  Tim.  iii.  3  [C  K  L  P]. 

82.  oiTikes  :  see  on  ver.  25  above. 

TO  SiKaiw/io :  prob.  in  the  first  instance  (i)  a  declaration  that 
a  thing  is  8iKaiov  [to  diKaiaifia  roii  vofiov  =  '  that  which  the  Law  lays 
down  as  right,'  Rom.  viii.  4] ;  hence,  '  an  ordinance '  (Luke  i.  6 ; 
Rom.  ii.  26  ;  Heb.  ix.  i,  10) ;  or  (ii)  'a  declaration  that  a  person 
is  BiKoios,'  'a  verdict  of  not  guilty,'  *an  acquittal*:  so  esp.  in 
St.  Paul  (e.  g.  Rom.  v.  16).    But  see  also  note  on  p.  31. 

im.yv6Yn%  :  iinyiyiiaMorrtt  (B)  80,  WH.  tmarj;. 

iroioGaiK  .  .  .  aufcuSoKoScri.  There  has  been  some  disturbance  of 
the  text  here  :  B,  and  apparently  Clem.  Rom.,  have  woioirrts .  .  . 
<Tvw(v8oKovvTes ;  and  so  too  D  E  Vulg.  (am.  fuld.)  Orig.-lat,  Lucif. 
and  other  Latin  Fathers,  but  inserting,  non  intellexerttni  {ovk 
€v6riaav  D).  WH.  obelize  the  common  text  as  prob.  corrupt :  they 
think  that  it  involves  an  anticlimax,  because  to  applaud  an  action 
in  others  is  not  so  bad  as  to  do  it  oneself ;  but  from  another  point 
of  view  to  set  up  a  public  opinion  in  favour  of  vice  is  worse  than 
to  yield  for  the  moment  to  temptation  (see  the  quotation  from 
ApoUinaris  below).  If  the  participles  are  wrong  they  have  probably 
been  assimilated  mechanically  to  npdaaovrtt.  Note  that  iroulv  ac 
facere,  to  produce  a  certain  result  ;  ttpuairtw  =  agere,  to  act  as 
moral  agent :  there  may  be  also  some  idea  of  repeated  action. 

aoi'tuSoKouCTi  denotes  '  hearty  approval '  (Rendall  on  Acts  xxii. 
20,  in  Expos.  1888,  ii.  209) ;  cf.  i  Mace.  i.  57  vvvtv^oKti  rw  v6^\ 
the  word  occurs  four  times  besides  in  N.  T.  (Luke,  Epp.  Paul.). 

ifupSripot  ii  worripol,  /ra2  i  icardp^at,  moI  6  fwipaftiif.  vwC  ii  wottit 
ri  vwtvioKtiv   X**Po*'  T(9>;crt  icarA  rd  Xty6tuvoy,  tl   kitA^tit  mK^wrf|9^ 


t.  18-82.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES  49 

wpfrptx**  «ir^.  6  ftir  ydp  voiwr,  fit&imr  r^  wA$et,  i^arot  r^  wfSi^ttK' 
i  9i  ffWivSoMUV,  iitris  ttv  rov  niBovt,  wotnfpiif  xpi)n*woi,  vwrfi^ti  rf>  Kcut^ 
(Apollinaris  in  Cramer*!  Cttenm). 

Si.  Paul's  Description  of  the  Condition  of  the 
Heathen   World. 

It  would  be  wrong  to  expect  from  St.  Paul  an  investigation  of 
the  origin  of  different  forms  of  idolatry  or  a  comparison  of  the 
morality  of  heathen  religions,  such  as  is  now  being  instituted  in  the 
Comparative  Science  of  Religion.  For  this  it  was  necessary  to 
wait  for  a  large  and  comprehensive  collection  of  data  which  has 
only  become  possible  within  the  present  century  and  is  still  far  from 
complete.  St.  Paul  looks  at  things  with  the  insight  of  a  religious 
teacher ;  he  describes  facts  which  he  sees  around  him ;  and  he  con- 
nects these  facts  ^ith  permanent  tendencies  of  human  nature  and 
with  principles  which  are  apparent  in  the  Providential  government 
of  the  world. 

The  Jew  of  the  Dispersion,  with  the  Law  of  Moses  in  his  hand, 
could  not  but  revolt  at  the  vices  which  he  found  prevailing  among 
the  heathen.  He  turned  with  disgust  from  the  circus  and  the 
theatre  (Weber,  Altsyn.  Thiol,  pp.  58,  68).  He  looked  upon  the 
heathen  as  given  over  especially  to  sins  of  the  flesh,  such  as  those 
which  St.  Paul  recounts  in  this  chapter.  So  far  have  they  gone  as 
to  lose  their  humanity  altogether  and  become  like  brute  beasts 
{ibid.  p.  67  £).  The  Jews  were  like  a  patient  who  was  sick  but 
with  hope  of  recovery.  Therefore  they  had  a  law  given  to  them  to 
be  a  check  upon  their  actions.  The  Heathen  were  like  a  patient 
who  was  sick  unto  death  and  beyond  all  hope,  on  whom  therefore 
the  physician  put  no  restrictions  {ibid.  p.  69). 

The  Christian  teacher  brought  with  him  no  lower  standard,  and 
his  verdict  was  not  less  sweeping.  'The  whole  world,'  said  St 
John,  '  lieth  in  wickedness,'  rather  perhaps,  *  in  [the  power  of]  the 
Wicked  One'  (i  Jo.  v.  19).  And  St  Paul  on  his  travels  must 
have  come  across  much  to  justify  the  denunciations  of  this  chapter. 
He  saw  that  idolatry  and  licence  went  together.  He  knew  that 
the  heathen  myths  about  their  gods  ascribed  to  them  all  manner 
of  immoralities.  The  lax  and  easy-going  anthropomorphism  oi 
Hellenic  religion  and  the  still  more  degraded  representations,  with 
at  times  still  more  degraded  worship,  of  the  gods  of  Egypt  and  the 


50  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [I.  18-8^ 

East,  were  thrown  into  dark  relief  by  his  own  severe  conception  of 
the  Divine  Holiness.  It  was  natural  that  he  should  give  the 
account  he  does  of  this  degeneracy.  The  lawless  fancies  of  men 
invented  their  own  divinities.  Such  gods  as  these  left  them  free  to 
follow  their  own  unbridled  passions.  And  the  Majesty  on  High, 
angered  at  their  wilful  disloyalty,  did  not  interfere  to  check  their 
downward  career. 

It  is  all  literally  true.  The  human  imagination,  following  its 
own  devices,  projects  even  into  the  Pantheon  the  streak  of  evil  by 
which  it  is  itself  disfigured.  And  so  the  mischief  is  made  worse, 
because  the  worshipper  is  not  likely  to  rise  above  the  objects  of 
his  worship.  It  was  in  the  strict  sense  due  to  supernatural  influ- 
ence that  the  religion  of  the  Jew  and  of  the  Christian  was  kept 
clear  of  these  corrupt  and  corrupting  features.  The  state  of  the 
Pagan  world  betokened  the  absence,  the  suspension  or  with- 
holding, of  such  supernatural  influence;  and  there  was  reason 
enough  for  the  belief  that  it  was  judicially  inflicted. 

At  the  same  time,  though  in  this  passage,  where  St.  Paul  ia 
measuring  the  religious  forces  in  the  world,  he  speaks  without 
limitation  or  qualification,  it  is  clear  from  other  contexts  that  con- 
demnation of  the  insufficiency  of  Pagan  creeds  did  not  make  him 
shut  his  eyes  to  the  good  that  there  might  be  in  Pagan  characters. 
In  the  next  chapter  he  distinctly  contemplates  the  case  of  Gentiles 
who  being  without  law  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  and  who  find  in 
their  consciences  a  substitute  for  external  law  (ii.  14,  15).  He 
frankly  allows  that  the  '  uncircumcision  which  is  by  nature '  put  to 
shame  the  Jew  with  all  his  greater  advantages  (ii  16-19).  We 
therefore  cannot  say  that  a  priori  reasoning  or  prejudice  makes 
him  untrue  to  facts.  The  Pagan  world  was  not  wholly  bad.  It 
had  its  scattered  and  broken  lights,  which  the  Apostle  recognizes 
with  the  warmth  of  genuine  sympathy.  But  there  can  be  equally 
little  doubt  that  the  moral  condition  of  Pagan  civilization  was  such 
as  abundantly  to  prove  his  main  proposition,  that  Paganism  was 
unequal  to  the  task  of  reforming  and  regenerating  mankind. 

There  is  a  monograph  on  the  subject,  which  however  doea  not 
add  much  beyond  what  lies  fairly  upon  the  surface :  Rogge,  Du 
Anschauungen  d.  Ap.  Paulus  vn  i.  rtligwt-tittiiehm  CharakUt  d 
Htideniums,  Leipzig,  1888. 


I.  16-da.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  GENTILES 


51 


If  the  statements  of  St.  Panl  cannot  be  taken  mt  once  at  supplying  the  place 
ef  scientific  inquiry  from  the  side  of  the  Comparative  History  of  Religion,  so 
neither  can  they  be  held  to  famish  data  which  can  be  utilized  just  as  they 
stand  by  the  historian.  The  standard  which  St.  Paul  applies  is  not  that  of 
the  historian  but  of  the  preacher.  He  does  not  judge  by  the  average  level  of 
Boral  attainment  at  different  epochs  but  by  the  ideal  standard  of  that  which 
ought  to  be  attained.  A  calm  and  dispassionate  weighing  of  the  facts,  with 
due  allowance  for  the  nature  of  the  authorities,  will  be  foood  in  Fhedlander, 
Sitttmguchuhtt  Roms,  Leipzig,  1 869-1 871. 


Uu  iftJu  B—k  of  Wisdom  in  CkafUr  I. 

L  18-39.  In  two  places  in  Epist.  to  Romans,  ch.  i  and  ch.  ix,  there  are 
dear  indications  of  the  use  by  the  Apostle  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom.  Such 
indications  are  not  wanting  elsewhere,  but  we  have  thought  it  best  to  call 
attention  to  them  especially  at  the  points  where  they  are  most  continuous  and 
most  striking.  We  begin  by  placing  side  by  side  the  language  of  St.  Paul 
and  that  of  Uie  earlier  work  by  which  it  is  illustrated. 


Romans. 
L  SO.  n^  7<if  iJifnnx  ttintSi  imh  Kri- 


f  m  Uktt  mknA  Hpufut  mi  fM^njr 


alt  ri  tbtu  mbrait  drairoXvy^rovr 

tl.  tiiaTatii6r)ffaw  tr  rots  8<aA»Y«ff- 
fioit  avrwv,  Mai  iffKorlaSt)  i^  davptrot 
oifTvy  Kapiia. 

a  a.  <pcL9M<mTU  Jw  gotpoi  i/mfii'- 


13.  mi  ^XXa^  rj^  S^or  rev  A^ 
0aprov  €t€ov  ir  dfunwfuiTi  tlKoyos  <p6a^ 
rov  dyOpuwov  Koi  ir<T<wwr  mai  rrrfm- 
wi50»  mai  kfrntrim. 


Wisdom, 
xiii.  I.  «a}  tK  rSiy  dpvfiivvr  &-ya$Sn> 
ovic  r<rxvffoi'  tldivai  rbv  ovra  owrt  Toii 
ipTfoit     wpoaixovrfs     inifywaav    rdv 

T«X'''''T'' 

xiii.  5.  itt  yap  n*yi6ovt  koI  xoXAoc^s 
mriafxiiTejv  avaKiyvs  i  ytvtaiovprfbs 
airrSjv  ttwpurcu. 

iL  aj.  [o  Stdi  litTiot  .  .  .  riv  avOpot- 
wov  .  .  .  tlKofa  TTJs  ISias  SxSiutt]Tos  • 
(Cod.  248  a/.,  Method.  Athan.  Epiph. ; 
l5i6TriToi  KAB,  Clem.- Alex.  Slc."' 
iiroiijatyj] 

xviii.  9.  T^y  riji  SaSTTjros  ySfioy. 

xiii.  8.  wi\iy  hi  ov5'  airol  avyyym- 
0Toi. 

xiii.  I.  /iiratot  -yip  iriyrtt  ayBpwiroi 
^vati,  oh  vaprjy  Stov  dyyaiaia  f. 

xii.  34.  Kal  fSip  rmv  ir\dv7]f  dSSn 
uaKpoTfpov  knXavqOrjaav  Bfoxis  vnoXafi- 
finvovTn  rd  Koi  iv  fj^'ou  rwv  kxBpcuv 
arifio,  yrfv'taiy  iljetjy  d((>p6ya>y  }(i(vaQiy- 

Tf». 

xii.  I.  rb  atpSaprSy  aov  tti'tvitia, 
xiv.  8.    rb  it  <p6aprrby  ©eus  iivofiA' 

•^- 

xiii.  10.  ruKaiiteipoi  ii  Koi  iy  ytxpou 

ml     iXniStt    avTwv,    otrtyts    iita\(Ga» 

0*obt  ipyn  xupSjy  dy&pwnuy. 


*  The  nore  tecent  editor*  as  a  r«1e 
read  ISiSttjtos  with  the  uncials  and 
Gen.  i.  36  f. ;  bat  it  is  by  no  means  clear 
that  they  are  right:  Cod.  348  em- 
bodies very  ancient  elements  and  the 
context  generally  favours  dlSidrijrof. 
It  still  would  not  be  certain  that  St 


Paul  had  this  passage  in  his  mind. 

t  The  parallel  here  is  not  quite 
exact.  St.  Paul  says, '  They  did  know 
but  relinquished  their  knowledge,' 
Wisd.  '  They  on^ht  to  have  knowa 
bat  did  not.' 


•  • 


5t 


BPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS 


[I.  18-3a 


35.  eirtrtt  /Mn^XXo^or  rj^  iX.'tfittam 
tov  Bfov  ip  r^  tf/tvidf  gal  iat^iaOtf* 


14.  M  wmp4S«K*r  tur.K 

t6.  IkA  Tovre  vapiZvmmf  «.  r.  X. 


rTipt(f,v\(oyf(i(f,  KaKiq,  fitarovs  (p$6vov, 
^yoVf  IpiSoif  SoKov,  icaitorjOftai,  ifii9v- 
ptorat,  KaraXiXom,  Ofoffrvytis,  v^pi- 
arit,  virtpT)((><ivovi,  dAa^(5vaf,  i(ptvpfTSi$ 
wucS/y,  yovfvaty  dnfiOfit,  aavyirovt, 
iawtirovt,  iaropyovt,  dftKt^fim'Qt. 


3,  14. 

ii^puiirov,  1)  (^  Ttpl  tirtku  Aftoiuotr 
atrro. 

xiii.  17  tqq.  otm  ciaxyytrai  r^ 
inf^XV  ^poaKaX&ir  ni  w€pl  fiir  ^«[a> 
t6  iaOtyit  iwinaXHTOif  rtpi  9i  (oi^t  ri 
wtKpbr  d^<or  K.  9,  X. 

ziT.  II.  S<ck  toSto  Koi  Iv  tl9ii\oa 
IBySiy  iwiffKori)  iarcu^  8r<  Ir  Ktiapan 
•cov  *U  fii(\vyfta  tytvfiOrjffar. 

xiv.  ai.  TO  ajcoiydjyrjrop  6fO)/m  XiBoti 
mai  (v\ots  wtpiiOtffar. 

xiv.  13.  ipx^  y^P  vopvtiatX  iniyom 
ttSuXofy,  tiptatis  Si  a\n5jy  (p$opd  ^oj^. 

xiv.  16.  «Ta  Ir  XP'^^'V  xparvyBtp  ri 
isf&is  iOot  dit  yofiot  i(pv\dx6r}, 

xiv.  23.  tlr  oIk  TjpKtat  t6  »A.ovfi- 
0$au  wtpl  T^y  Tofi  6(oC  TvcMTtr,  d\Ad  wai 
iy  ft*y6.\<f>  (wrtt  dyyoiai  wo\ift^  ri 
rooavra  Kotcd  flp^yfjy  irpoffayoptvovffty, 
13.  ^  yip  T(KW0^6yovt  rtKtrdt  ^  Kpxxpia 
pkvffrfipia  4  ififtaytit  i(aK\uy  OtapSiy 
gdipiovt  iyoyrft,  34.  ot/Tf  /3(0Vt  ofirf 
^d/ioVT  icaOapoiis  (rt  <pv\aff<Tov(Tiy,  lr<- 
^ot  8'  trtpoy  ^  KoxSn'  atnupti  %  yoOtimm 

35.  wirra  8)  impii  lx«  of/ia  xoi 
^(Jvo;  k\ov^  ica\  S^Xor,  <p0opA^  dinorto, 
ripaxoSy  imopKia,  66pv0ot  dyaOwyf 
36.  x^P*'''^*  apLyrjaioj  if/vxSn'  puaapLot^ 
ytyiatoJt  (sex)  ivaXKay^,  yifttir  ira^l^ 
/iotx<^ci  Koi  daiXytia. 

tj,  1^  7dp  rSry  ifonnifuev  tlUtXam 
$pt}a)c«la  rayrit  ipx^  KOMoi  mai  Qlrlm 
Mi2  wipat  tarty. 


It  will  be  seen  that  while  on  tht  ooe  band  there  can  bt  no  qnestion  ci 
direct  quotation,  on  the  other  hand  the  resemblance  it  so  strong  both  as  to 
the  main  lines  of  the  argument  (i.  Natural  religion  discarded,  ii.  idolatry, 
iii.  catalogue  of  immorality)  and  in  the  details  of  thought  and  to  some 
extent  of  expression  as  to  make  it  clear  that  at  some  time  in  his  life  St.  Panl 
must  have  bestowed  upon  the  Book  of  Wisdom  a  considerable  amount  of 
study. 

[Compare  the  note  on  ix.  19-39  below,  also  an  essay  by  £.  Grafe  in 
Tkeol.  Abhandlungtn  C.  von  Weizsdcher  gtwidmet,  Freiburg  i.  B.  1892, 
p.  351  ff.  In  this  essay  will  be  found  a  summary  of  previous  discussions  of 
the  question  and  an  estimate  of  the  extent  of  St  Paul's  indebtedness  which 
agrees  substantially  with  that  expressed  above.  It  did  not  extend  to  any  of 
the  leading  ideas  of  Christianity,  and  affected  the  form  rather  than  the 
matter  of  the  arguments  to  which  it  did  extend.  Rona.  L  iS-^a,  is.  19-33 
are  the  most  conspicuous  examples.] 


X  A.V.  expands  this  as  '  [spiritual] 
fornication  ' ;  and  so  most  modems. 
B«t  even  so  the  phiKse  might  hav« 


kad  something  to  do  in  raggesting  th« 
thought  of  St.  Paol. 


U.  1-16.]  TRANSITION  TO  THE  JEWS  53 


TBANSITIOir  PROM  aBNTILB  TO  JEW.     BOTH 
ALIKE  OUHiTY. 

n.  1-ld.  This  state  of  things  puts  out  of  court  the  \Jewisfi\ 
critic  who  is  himself  fw  better  than  the  Gentile.  He  can 
claim  no  exemption,  but  only  aggravates  his  sin  by  im- 
penitence (w.1-5).  Strict  justice  will  be  meted  out  to  all  — 
ths  Jew  coming  first  then  the  Gentile  (w.  6-1 1).  The  Jew, 
will  be  judged  by  tlte  Law  of  Moses,  the  Gentile  by  the  Law 
of  Conscience,  at  the  Great  Assize  which  Christ  will  hold 
(w.  ia-i6). 

*  The  Gentile  sinner  is  without  excuse ;  and  his  critic — who- 
eyer  he  may  be — is  equally  without  excuse,  even  though  [like 
the  Jew]  he  imagines  himself  to  be  on  a  platform  of  lofty  superiority. 
No  such  platform  really  exists.  In  fact  the  critic  only  passes 
sentence  upon  himself,  for  by  the  fact  of  his  criticism  he  shows  that 
he  can  distinguish  accurately  between  right  and  wrong,  and  his 
own  conduct  is  identical  with  that  which  he  condemns.  '  And  we 
are  aware  that  it  is  at  his  conduct  that  God  will  look.  The 
standard  of  His  judgement  is  reality,  and  not  a  man's  birth  or 
status  as  either  Jew  or  Gentile.  *  Do  you  suppose — ^you  Jewish 
critic,  who  are  so  ready  to  sit  in  judgement  on  those  who  copy  your 
own  example — do  you  suppose  that  a  special  exemption  will  be 
made  in  your  favour,  and  that  you  personally  ((ru  emphatic)  will 
escape  ?  *  Or  are  you  presuming  upon  all  that  abundant  goodness, 
forbearance,  and  patience  with  which  God  delays  His  punishment 
of  sin?  If  so,  you  make  a  great  mistake.  The  object  of  that  long- 
suffering  is  not  that  you  may  evade  punishment  but  only  to  induce 
you  to  repent.  •  While  you  with  that  callous  impenitent  heart  of 
yours  are  heaping  up  arrears  of  Wrath,  which  will  burst  upon  you 
in  the  Day  of  Wrath,  when  God  will  stand  revealed  in  His  character 
as  the  Righteous  Judge.  •  The  principle  of  His  judgement  is  clear 
and  simple.  He  will  render  to  every  man  his  due,  by  no  fictitious 
standard  (such  as  birth  or  status)  but  strictly  according  to  what 
he  has  done.  '  To  those  who  by  steady  persistence  in  a  life-work 
of  good  strive  for  the  deathless  glories  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom, 


54  EPISTLE   TO  THE  ROMANS 

He  will  give  that  for  which  they  strive,  viz.  eternal  life,  ^Biit 
to  those  mutinous  spirits  who  are  disloyal  to  the  right  and  loyal 
only  to  unrighteousness,  for  such  there  is  in  store  anger  and 
fury,  ^galling,  nay  crushing,  pain:  for  every  human  being  they 
are  in  store,  who  carries  out  to  the  end  his  course  of  evil,  whethei 
lie  be  Jew  or  whether  he  be  Gentile — the  Jew  again  having  prece- 
dence. '*0n  the  other  hand  the  communicated  glory  of  the  Divine 
Presence,  the  approval  of  God  and  the  bliss  of  reconciliation  with 
Him  await  the  man  who  labours  on  at  that  which  is  good — be  he 
Jew  or  Gentile ;  here  too  the  Jew  having  precedence,  but  only 
precedence  :  "  for  God  regards  no  distinctions  of  race. 

"  Do  not  object  that  the  Jew  has  a  position  of  privilege  which 
will  exempt  him  from  this  judgement,  while  the  Gentile  has  no  law 
by  which  he  can  be  judged.  The  Gentiles,  it  is  true,  have  no  law ; 
but  as  they  have  sinned,  so  also  will  they  be  punished  without  one 
[see  w.  14,  15].  The  Jews  live  under  a  law,  and  by  that  law  they 
will  be  judged.  "For  it  is  not  enough  to  hear  it  read  in  the 
synagogues.  That  does  not  make  a  man  righteous  before  God. 
His  verdict  will  pronounce  righteous  only  those  who  have  dctu 
what  the  Law  commands.  "I  say  that  (Jentiles  too,  although 
they  have  no  written  law,  will  be  judged.  For  whenever  any  of 
them  instinctively  put  in  practice  the  precepts  of  the  Law,  their 
own  moral  sense  supplies  them  with  the  law  they  need.  "Be- 
cause their  actions  give  visible  proof  of  commandments  written  not 
on  stone  but  on  the  tables  of  the  heart.  These  actions  themselves 
bear  witness  to  them;  and  an  approving  conscience  also  bears 
them  witness ;  while  in  their  dealings  with  one  another  their  inward 
thoughts  take  sometimes  the  side  of  the  prosecution  and  some- 
times (but  more  rarely)  of  the  defence.  "  These  hidden  workings 
of  the  conscience  God  can  see;  and  therefore  He  will  judge 
Gentile  as  well  as  Jew,  at  that  Great  Assise  which  I  teach  that  He 
will  hold  through  His  Deputy,  Jesus  Messiah. 

1.  The  transition  from  Gentile  to  Jew  is  conducted  with  raocfa 
rhetorical  skill,  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  Nathan's  parable 
to  David.  Under  cover  of  a  general  statement  St  Paul  sets  be- 
fore himself  a  typical  Jew.  Such  an  one  would  assent  cordially 
to  all  that  had  been  said  hitherto  (p.  49,  tup.).  It  is  now  turned 
against  himself,  though  for  the  moment  the  Apostle  holds  ia 
suspense  the  direct  affirmation,  '  Thou  art  the  man.' 


II .  1-4.]  TRANSITION  TO  THE  JEWS  55 

There  U  evidence  that  Marcion  keptvr.  a,  12-14, 16,  30(from  ?xoi'Ta)-a9; 
fof  the  rest  evidence  fail*.  We  might  suppose  that  Marcion  would  omit  w. 
17-ao,  which  record  (however  ironically)  the  privileges  of  the  Jew;  bat  the 
retention  of  the  Utt  clause  of  ver.  ao  is  against  this. 

%ti  links  this  section  closely  to  the  last ;  it  is  well  led  up  to  by 
i.  38,  but  apanoK.  pointing  back  to  i.  20  shows  that  the  Apostle  had 
more  than  this  in  his  mind. 

2.  oiSafiev  Se  ABD  &c.,  Hard.,  Orig.-lat.  Tert.  Ambrstr.  Theodrt.  a/. 
WH.  Uxt  RV.  text  :  oWafiev  yap  N  C  17  «/.  J>auc.  Latt.  (exc.  g)  Boh.  Arm., 
Chrys. ,  Tisch.  WH.  ma7-g.  RV.  niarg.  An  even  balance  of  authorities, 
both  sides  drawing  their  evidence  from  varied  quarters.  A  more  positive 
decision  than  that  of  WH.  RV.  would  hardly  be  justified. 

elSaficr :  oJSa  =  to  know  for  a  fact,  by  external  testimony ; 
yiyviiKTKm  » to  know  by  inner  personal  experience  and  appro- 
priation: see  Sp.  Comm.  iiL  299;  Additional  note  on  i  Cor.  viii.  i. 

8.  av  emphatic ;  *  thou,  of  all  men.'  There  is  abundant  illus- 
tration of  the  view  current  among  the  Jews  that  the  Israelite  was 
secure  simply  as  such  by  virtue  of  his  descent  from  Abraham  and 
of  his  possession  of  the  Law :  cf.  Matt.  iii.  8,  9  *  Think  not  to  say 
within  yourselves,  We  have  Abraham  to  our  father ' ;  Jo.  viii.  33  ; 
Gal.  it  15 ;  the  passages  quoted  by  Gif. ;  Weber,  Allsyn.  Theol. 
p.  69  f. 

There  may  be  an  element  of  popular  misunderstanding,  there  is 
certainly  an  element  of  inconsistency,  in  some  of  these  passages. 
The  story  of  Abraham  sitting  at  the  gate  of  Paradise  and  refusing 
to  turn  away  even  the  wicked  Israelite  can  hardly  be  a  fair 
specimen  of  the  teaching  of  the  Rabbis,  for  we  know  that  they  in- 
sisted strenuously  on  the  performance  of  the  precepts  of  the  Law, 
moral  as  well  as  ceremonial.  But  in  any  case  there  must  have 
been  a  strong  tendency  to  rest  on  supposed  religious  privileget 
apart  from  the  attempt  to  make  practice  conform  to  them. 

4.  •%ipn\trr6T(\T0%'.  bonitatis  Vulg.,  in  Tit.  iii.  4  benignitas:  st- 
Lft.  on  Gal.  v.  si.  XP'?*"'*^"?^  =  'kindly  disposition';  }xaKpo6vfiio 
as  'patience,'  opp.  to  6^v6vfiia  a  'short'  or  'quick  temper,'  'irasci- 
bility' (cf.  ^pa8vt  tit  opyriv  Jas.  i.  19) ;  avo^^  =  ' forbearance,' 
•delay  of  punishment,'  cf.  ivtxofiai  to  hold  one's  hand. 

Comp.  Philo,  Z<f.  Allegor.  L  13  (Mang.  L  50)  'Orav  ydip  tjj  ftlr  xari 
$a\aTrT]Sj  vriycis  Si  iv  rois  cprf/jornTois  inon^pfi  .  .  .  ri  irtpov  napiartjaiv  J| 
T^v  virtpffoKtjV  Tov  T(  vKovTov  Kal  rrjs  d'fa06Tt)TOt  avrov ; 

With  iMxtcpoOv/juas  comp.  a  graphic  image  in  Apoe.  Baruch.  xii.  4  Evigu 
laUt  centra  U  furor  qui  nunc  in   longanimitate  tanqttam  in  frtnis  reti- 

The  following  is  also  an  impressive  statement  of  this  side  of  the  Divine 
attributes:  4  Ezr.  vii.  62-68  (132-138)  Scio,  Do/nine,  qtioniam{  =  ori  '  that ') 
nunc  vocatus  est  Altissimus  /nisericors,  in  eo  quod misereatur  his  qui  non- 
dum  in  saeculo  advene r tint ;  et  7niserator  in  eo  quod  miseratur  illis  qzn 
conversioncinfaciunt  in  lege  eiiis  ;  et  longaniinis,  quoniani  longanimitatem 
traestat  his  qui  peccaverunt  quasi  suis  operibus ;  et  munijicus,  quoniam 


56  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [II  4-6. 

quidem  donare  vult  pro  exigere  ;  et  7nuUae  miser icordiae,  quo7iiam  mui- 
tiplicaf  inagis  misericordias  his  qui  praesenles  stint  et  qui  praeterierunf  et 
qui  futuri  sunt :  si  enim  non  mtdtiplicaverit,  non  vivificahitzir  saeculu'r 
cum  his  qui  inhabitant  in  eo ,  et  donator,  qtioniam  si  non  donaverit  de 
honitate  sua  ut  allcventur  hi  qui  iniquitatein  feccrunt  de  suis  iniqui tafi- 
bus,  non  poierit  dccies  niillesiina  pars  vivijicari  honiinuin. 

Kara^tpovclis  :  ct.  Apoc.  Baruch.  xxi.  3o  Innsttscat  pottniui  tua  iUii  fwi 
pHtant  lenganimitatem  tuam  esse  infirmitattm. 

CIS  ficToVotai'  at  ayci :  its  purpose  or  tendencj  ii  to  induce  you 
to  repent. 

•  The  Conative  Present  is  merely  a  specicf  of  the  Progxessiye  Present.  A 
Terb  which  of  itself  suggests  effort  when  nsed  hi  a  tense  which  implies  action 
in  progress,  and  hence  incomplete,  naturally  suggests  the  idea  of  attempt ' 
(Burton,  §  ii). 

'According  to  R.  Levi  the  words  [Joel  ii.  13]  mean:  God  remoTes  to 
a  distance  His  Wrath.  Like  a  king  who  had  two  fierce  legions.  If  these, 
thought  he,  encamp  near  me  in  the  country  they  will  rise  against  my  subjects 
when  they  provoke  me  to  anger.  Therefore  I  will  send  them  far  away. 
Then  if  my  subjects  provoke  me  to  anger  before  I  send  for  them  (the  legions) 
they  may  appease  me  and  I  shall  be  willing  to  be  appeased.  So  also  said 
God :  Ajiger  and  Wrath  are  the  messengers  of  destruction.  I  will  send  them 
liar  awav  to  a  distance,  so  that  when  the  Israelites  provoke  Me  to  anger,  they 
may  come,  before  I  send  for  them,  and  repent,  and  I  may  accept  their 
repentance  (cf.  Is.  xiii.  5).  And  not  only  that,  said  R.  Jitchak,  but  he 
locks  them  up  (Anger  and  Wrath)  out  of  their  way ;  see  Jer.  1.  35,  which 
means :  Until  He  opens  His  treasure-chamber  and  shuts  it  again,  man 
returns  to  God  and  He  accepU  hina'  (7r«f/.  Tkcumith  iL  i  a/.  Winter  n. 
Wiinsche,  _/«^.  Litt.  i.  207). 

6.  KOT<£  :  *  in  accordance  with,'  ttcundum  iuritiam  tuam  Vulg. 
ipyrjK  :  see  on  i.  18  above. 

ipYTjK  i*  fniip({,  ipYTJs  :  to  be  taken  closely  together,  '  wrath  (to 
be  inflicted)  in  a  day  of  wrath.' 

The  doctrine  of  a  '  day  of  the  Lord  '  as  a  day  of  judgement  k  taught  by 
the  Prophets  from  Amos  onwards  (Amos  v.  1 8  ;  la.  ii.  1 3  ff. ;  xiiL  6  ff. ;  xjdr. 
ai ;  Jer.  xlvi.  10 ;  Joel  ii.  i  ff. ;  Zeph.  i.  7  ff. ;  Eiek.  vli.  7  ff. ;  xxx.  3  ff. ;  Zech. 
xiv,  I ;  Mai.  iii.  3  ;  It.  i.  It  also  enters  largely  into  the  pseudepigraphic 
literature :  £nMh  xlv.  3  ff.  (and  the  passages  collected  in  Charles*  Note) ; 
Ps.  Sol.  XV.  13  ff. ;  4  Ear.  vi.  18  ff.,  77  ff.  [vii  loa  ff.  ed.  Bensly];  «L  J4; 
A/oc.  Bartuk.  Ii.  i ;  Iv.  6,  See. 

SiKaioKpiaias :  not  quite  the  same  as  tiutalat  Kplvemt  »  Thess.  i.  5 
{cf.jtuftjudi'cu  Vulg.),  denoting  not  so  much  the  character  of  the 
judgement  as  the  character  of  the  Judge  {diieatoKpn^t  t  Mace  zii. 
41  ;  cf.  6  diKaios  KpiTrjs  3  Tim.  iv.  8). 

The  word  occurs  in  the  Quintm  (the  fifth  verstoo  indnded  ia  Origea's 
Htxapld)  of  Hos.  yi  5  ;  it  is  also  found  twice  in  Test.  XII PatrimrtX.  Levi  3 
b  dfVTf pos  Ix"  ^Pf  X*<5«'«,  ifpvaraWoy  troiiia  tts  ^nipav  wpoaraynarot  Kvpiot 
Iv  rp  SiKaioKpiffiq  rov  Bfov.  Ibid,  15  X^\f/ta$t  dfttSiafiiw  imi  alax'ir^  aU/rim 
m/xi  Tr)s  iiKaio»cpiala$  rov  9<ou 

6.  8f  diroScoaci:  Prov.  xxiv.  la  (LXX).  The  principle  here  laid 
down,    though  in   full   accord  with   the   teachhig  of  the  N.  T 


n.  6-8.]  TRANSITION   TO  THE  JEWS  57 

generally  (Matt.  xvi.  27 ;  a  Cor.  v.  10;  GaL  vi.  7;  Eph.  vi.  8; 
Col.  iii.  24,  25 ;  Rev.  ii.  33;  xx.  la ;  xxii.  la),  may  seem  at  first 
sight  to  conflict  with  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith. 
But  Justification  is  a  past  act,  resulting  in  a  present  state:  it 
belongs  properly  to  the  beginning,  not  to  the  end,  of  the  Christian's 
career  (see  on  bucaiudrjaorrai  in  ver.  13).  Observe  too  that  there  is 
no  real  antithesis  between  Faith  and  Works  in  themselves.  Works 
are  the  evidence  of  Faith,  and  Faith  has  its  necessary  outcome  in 
Works.  The  true  antithesis  is  between  earning  salvation  and 
receiving  it  as  a  gift  of  God's  bounty.  St.  Paul  himself  would 
have  allowed  that  there  might  have  been  a  question  of  earning 
salvation  if  the  Law  were  really  kept  (Rom.  x.  5;  Gal.  iii.  la). 
But  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Law  was  not  kept,  the  works  were  not 
done. 

7.  Koff  iifo^v^¥  tpyov  dyaOou :  collective  use  of  *pyow,  as  in 
ver.  15,  'a  lifework,'  the  sum  of  a  man's  actions. 

8.  Tois  Se  i^  JpiOeias :  '  those  whose  motive  is  factiousness,'  opp. 
to  the  spirit  of  single-minded  unquestioning  obedience,  those  who 
use  all  the  arts  of  unscrupulous  faction  to  contest  or  evade  com- 
mands which  they  ought  to  obey.  From  epidos  '  a  hired  labourer ' 
we  get  ipiBevm  'to  act  as  a  hireling,'  ipiBtvofuu  a  political  term 
for  '  hiring  paid  canvassers  and  promoting  party  spirit : '  hence 
ipi6(ia  ss.  the  spirit  of  faction,  the  spirit  which  substitutes  factious 
opposition  for  the  willing  obedience  of  loyal  subjects  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  See  Lft.  and  £11.  on  GaL  v.  ao,  but  esp.  Fri. 
ad  he. 

The  ancients  were  strangely  at  sea  aboat  this  word.  Hesychins  (cent  5) 
derived  ipiOos  from  Ipa  '  earth ' ;  the  Etymologicum  Magnum  (a  compilation 
perhaps  of  the  eleventh  century)  goes  a  step  further,  and  derives  it  from  ipa 
^5  agrUtla  merctdt  conductus ;  Greg.  Nyssen.  connects  it  with  iptov  '  wool ' 
(ipiOos  was  nsed  specially  of  woolworkers)  ;  but  most  common  of  all  is  the 
connexion  with  Ipii  (so  Theodrt.  on  Phil.  ii.  3 ;  cf.  Vulg.  Ais  qui  tx  con- 
tention* \_per  ccntentiomm  Phil.  ii.  3 ;  rix<u  Gal.  v.  20] ).  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  the  use  of  iptOda  was  affected  by  association  with  tpts, 
though  there  is  no  real  connexion  between  me  two  words  (see  notes  on 
kmvpi)6fiaa9  xL  7,  Karavi^iut  xi.  8). 

ipY^i  . .  .  6u|i^s  :  see  Lft  and  £11.  on  Gal.  v.  20 ;  Trench,  Syn, 
p.  125:  opyii  is  the  settled  feeling,  6v(i6t  the  outward  manifestation, 
'  outbursts '  or  *  ebullitions  of  wrath.' 

bpyii  9t  ifTV  i  iw6fMPot  roTt  Afiaprdveveiv  M  rtftwplcf  nSvoi.  6vix.hu  Se 
Apt^oyrcu  dpy^  inaOviuanhrqv  ic<d  ti<Abaiyovaav  Orig.  (in  Cramer's  Catena). 

9.  6Xti|fis  Kal  crreyoxwpia :  tribulatio  {pressura  in  the  African  form 
of  the  Old  Latin)  //  angtistia  Vulg.,  whence  our  word  '  anguish  * : 
oTtvox^plavs,  the  stronger  wordss'  torturing  confinement '  (cf.  a  Cor. 
iv.  8).  But  the  etymological  sense  is  probably  lost  in  usage: 
calamitas  et  angusHae  h>  e.  summa  calamitas  FrL  p.  106. 


5K  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [II.  9-19. 

For  limilar  combinatioaa  ('day  of  tribulation  and  pain/  'of  tribnlatirai 
and  great  shame,' '  of  suffering  and  tribulation,' '  of  angui&h  and  affliction,'  Sec) 
sec  Charles'  note  on  Enoch  xIt.  a. 

KaTcpya^ofxcVou  =  '  carry  to  the  end ' ;  Kara  either  strengthening 
the  force  of  the  simple  vb.,  as  per  in  perficere,  or  giving  't  a  bad 
sense,  as  \r\  perpetrare  Fri.  p.  107. 

11.  ■n-poaa)TroXT]\|»io :  peculiar  to  Biblical  and  Ecclesiastical  Greek 
(Eph.  vi.  9 ;  Col.  iii.  25 ;  Jas.  ii.  i  ;  cf.  npoamnoXriTrrrft  Acts  X.  34 ; 

ni.w(ro)iro\r]itT('iv   JaS.   ii.    9;   a7rpo(T(i}no\rjirro»t    I    Pet.   i.  l'j)l   rrp6crm7roi> 

hip^dveiv  =  (i)  to  give  a  gracious  reception  to  a  suppliant  or  suitor 
(Lev.  xix.  15) ;  and  hence  (ii)  to  show  partiality,  give  corrupt  judge- 
ment    In  N.  T.  always  with  a  bad  sense- 

The  idea  goei  back  to  Deut.  x.  ij  &  9*dt ,  ,  .  oi  $avf*a(ti  wpdffwww  ciV 
ov  pj)  A^d/Sp  Iwpov,  which  is  adopted  in  Ps.  Sol.  ii.  19  i  e«ut  Kpir^i  blKoiot  «a2 
ov  6avfia.au  rrp6<xainov,  and  explained  '\aJubiUts  t.  15  'And  He  ii  not  one 
who  will  refjard  the  person  (of  any)  nor  receive  gifts ;  when  He  says  that  He 
will  execute  judgement  on  each :  if  one  gave  him  everything  that  is  on  the 
earth,  He  will  not  regard  the  gifts  or  the  person  (of  any),  nor  accept  any- 
thing at  his  hands,  for  he  is  a  Righteous  Judge' ;  cf.  Apot.  Banuh.  xiii.  7, 
Pirqi  Aboth  iv.  31  '  He  is  about  to  judge  with  whom  there  is  no  iniquity, 
nor  forgetfulness,  nor  respect  of  persons,  nor  taking  of  a  bribe.' 

12, 13.  vojios  and  6  v6(jiot.  The  distinction  between  these  two  forms  did 
not  escape  the  scholarship  of  Origen,  whose  comment  on  Rom.  iii.  ai  reads 
thus  in  Rufinus'  translation  (ed.  Lommatzsch,  vi  201):  Moris  tst  apud 
Graetos  nominibus  apOpa  praeponi,  quae  apud  nos  possunt  articuli  nominari. 
Si  quando  igitur  Alosis  legem  nominal,  solilum  nomini pratmittit  artitulum: 
si  quando  vero  naluralem  vult  intelligi,  sine  articulo  nominal  legem.  This 
distinction  however,  though  it  holds  good  generally,  does  not  cover  all  the 
cas«s.  There  are  really  three  mam  uses:  ii)  o  vo^toj  -=  the  Law  of  Moses; 
the  art.  denotes  something  with  which  the  readers  are  familiar,  'their  own 
law,*  which  Christians  in  some  sense  inherited  from  the  Jews  through  the  O.  T 
(a)  Kii/tof^ law  in  general  (e.g.  ii.  12,14;  iii.  20  f.;  iv.  15;  v.  13,  &c.).  (3)  But 
there  is  yet  a  third  usage  where  vofxos  without  art.  really  means  the  Law  of 
Moses,  but  the  absence  of  the  art.  calls  attention  to  it  not  as  proceeding  from 
Moses,  but  in  its  quality  as  law ;  noM  quia  Mosis  sed  quia  lex  as  Gif.  expresses 
it  in  his  comment  on  Gal.  ii.  19  (p.  46).  St.  Paul  reganis  the  Pie-Messianic 
period  as  essentially  a  period  of  Law,  both  for  Jew  and  for  Gentile.  Hence 
when  he  wishes  to  bring  ont  this  he  uses  vuftos  without  art.  even  where  he  is 
referring  to  the  Jews ;  because  his  mam  point  is  that  they  were  under 
'  a  legal  system ' — who  gave  it  and  what  name  it  bore  was  a  secondary  con- 
sideration. The  Law  of  the  Jews  was  only  a  typical  example  of  a  state  of 
things  that  was  universal.     This  will  explain  passages  like  Rom.  v.  ao,  r.  4 

There  will  remain  a  few  places,  which  do  not  come  under  any  of  these 
heads,  where  the  absence  of  the  art.  is  accounted  for  by  the  influence  of  the 
context,  usually  acting'  through  the  law  of  grammatical  sympathy  by  which 
when  one  word  in  a  phrase  drops  the  article  anotlier  also  drops  it ;  some  oi 
these  passages  involve  rather  nice  points  of  scholarship  (see  the  notes  00 
ii.  25;  iii.  31  ;  xiii.  8).  On  the  whole  subject  compare  esp.  Gif.  p^  47ff. ; 
also  a  monograph  by  Grafe,  Die  paulinische  Lehre  von  Gesetz,  Freiburg  I, 
B.  1884,  ed.  2,  189,^.  Dr.  Grafe  goes  rather  too  far  in  denying  the  dis- 
tinction between  vbpai  and  6  nd/j-os,  but  his  paper  contains  many  just  re- 
marks and  criticisms. 

12.   ijfioprov.   Burcon  ($  54)  calls  this  a  *  collective  Aorist,'  represented 


1112-14.]  TRANSITION   TO   THE    JEWS  59 

in  English  by  the  Perfect.  '  From  the  point  of  view  from  which  the  Apostle 
is  speaking,  the  sin  of  each  offender  is  simply  a  past  fact,  and  the  sin  of 
all  a  series  or  aggregate  of  facts  together,  constituting  a  past  fact.  But 
inasmuch  as  this  series  is  not  separated  from  the  time  of  speaking  we  must 
as  in  iii.  23  employ  an  English  Perfect  in  translation.'  Prof.  Burton 
suggests  an  alternative  possibility  that  the  aor.  may  be  proleptic,  as  if  it 
were  spoken  looking  backwards  from  the  Last  Judgement  of  the  sins  which 
will  then  be  past;  but  the  parallels  of  iii.  23,  v.  12  are  against  this. 

avo/xco^.  The  heathen  are  represented  as  deliberately  reject- 
ing not  only  the  Law  of  Moses  but  even  the  Noachic  ordinances. 
Thus  they  have  become  enemies  of  God  and  as  such  are  doomed 
to  destruction  (Weber,  Altsyn.  TJieol.  p.  65). 

IS.  ol  aKpoaral  v6[ji'^v  :  cf.  KaTr)\ovfi(vot  (m  rov  rSfiov  ver.  18 ;  also  Pereq 
R.  Meir  6  {Sayings  of  the  Jewish  Fathers,  ed.  Taylor,  p.  115)  '  Thorah  is 
acquired  ...  by  leamii;g,  by  a  listeniijg  ear,'  &c.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  among  the  sayings  ascribed  to  Simeon,  very  possibly  St.  Paul's  own 
class-mate  and  son  of  Gamaliel  his  teacher,  is  this:  'not  learning  but  doing 
is  the  groundwork ;  and  whoso  multiplies  words  occasions  sin'  {PirqiAbotk. 
i.  18,  ed.  Taylor;  reff.  from  Delitzsch). 

v6^ov  sine  artic.  bis  NABDG.  The  absence  of  the  art.  again  (as  in  the 
last  verse)  generalizes  the  form  of  statement,  '  the  hearers  and  the  doers  of 
law'  (whatever  that  law  may  be) ;  cf.  vii.  I. 

8iKaib>di^vo»n-ai.  The  word  is  used  here  in  its  universal  sense  of 
'  a  judicial  verdict,'  but  the  fut.  tense  throws  forward  that  verdict 
to  the  Final  Judgement.  This  use  must  be  distinguished  from 
that  which  has  been  explained  above  (p.  30  f.),  the  special  or,  so  to 
speak,  technical  use  of  the  term  Justification  which  is  characteristic 
of  St.  Paul.  It  is  not  that  the  word  has  any  different  sense  but 
that  it  is  referred  to  the  past  rather  ihan  to  the  future  (ducatm^tWes 
aor.  cf.  V.  1,9);  the  acquittal  there  dates  from  the  moment  at 
which  the  man  becomes  a  Christian ;  it  marks  the  initial  step  in 
his  career,  his  right  to  approach  the  presence  of  God  as  if  he  were 
righteous.     See  on  ver.  6  above. 

14,  €9iT) :  TO  i6v^  would  mean  all  or  most  Gentiles,  t6vr\  means 
only  some  Gentiles  ;  the  number  is  quite  indefinite,  the  prominent 
point  being  their  character  as  Gentiles. 

Cf.  4  Ezr.  iii.  36  homines  quidtm  per  ntmima  imvtnitJ  lervaut  mandata 
tua,  gentes  autem  non  i$meni«$. 

tA  ft^  yiyxiv  exoiTo ,  the  force  of  ^^  is  '  who  *x  hypoihesi  have  not 
a  law,'  whom  we  conceive  of  as  not  having  a  law ;  cf,  ra  ^  ivra 
I  Cor.  i.  28  (^uae  pro  nihilo  habentur  Grimm). 

4auTois  €iffi  i^fios :  ubi  legis  impUiio,  ibi  lex  P.  Ewald. 

The  doctrine  of  this  verse  was  liberal  doctrine  for  a  Jew.  The  Talmnd 
recognizes  no  merit  in  the  good  deeds  of  heathen  unless  they  are  accompanied 
by  a  definite  wish  for  admission  to  the  privileges  of  Judaism.  Even  if 
a  heathen  were  to  keep  the  whole  law  it  would  avail  him  nothing  withont 
oircamcisioQ  {Debarim  Rabba  i).    If  he  prayi  to  Jehovah  his  prayer  is  e«^ 


6o  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [II.  14,  16 

heard  {ibid.).  If  he  commits  lin  «nd  repents,  that  too  does  not  help  him 
{Ptsikta  156').  Eren  for  hit  alms  he  gets  no  credit  {Pesiktm  12'').  'In 
their  books'  (i.e.  in  those  in  which  God  sets  down  the  actions  of  the 
heathen)  ' there  is  no  desert'  {Shir  Rabba  86").  See  Weber,  A//syn.  Theol. 
p.  66  f.  Christian  theologians  have  expressed  themselves  much  to  the  same 
effect  Their  opinions  are  summed  up  concisely  by  Mark  Pattison,  Bssayt, 
ii.  61.  'In  accordance  with  this  view  they  interpreted  the  passages  in 
St.  Paul  which  speak  of  the  religion  of  the  heathen;  e.g.  Rom.  ii.  14. 
Since  the  time  of  Augustine  [De  Spir.  tt  Lit.  §  27)  the  orthodox  interpreta- 
tion had  applied  this  verse,  either  to  the  Gentile  converts,  or  to  the  favoured 
few  among  the  heathen  who  had  extraordinary  divine  assistance.  The 
Protestant  expositors,  to  whom  the  words  "  do  by  nature  the  things  contained 
in  the  law  "  could  never  bear  their  literal  force,  sedulously  preserved  the 
Augustinian  explanation.  Even  the  Pelagian  Jeremy  Taylor  is  obliged  to 
gloss  the  phrase  "  by  nature,"  thus :  "  By  fears  and  secret  opinions  which  the 
Spiiit  of  God,  who  is  never  wanting  to  men  in  things  necessary,  was  pleased 
to  put  into  the  hearts  of  men  "  {Duct.  Dubit.  Book  II.  ch.  i,  §  3).  The 
rationalists,  however,  find  the  expression  "  by  nature,"  in  its  literal  sense, 
exactly  conformable  to  their  own  views  (John  Wilkins  [1614-1672],  Of  Nat. 
Rel.  II.  c.  9),  and  have  no  difficulty  in  supposing  the  acceptableness  of  those 
works,  and  the  salvation  of  those  who  do  them.  Burnet,  on  Art.  XVIII., 
in  his  usual  confused  style  of  eclecticism,  suggests  both  opinions  without 
seeming  to  see  that  they  are  incompatible  relics  of  divergent  schools  of 
doctrine.' 

16.  olrifes:  see  on  L  25. 

lv%v.Kv\ivta,\.'.  fp^ei^is  implies  an  appeal  to  facta;  demonstratio 
rebus  gestis  facia  (P.  Ewald,  De  Vocis  Iwddfiorfas,  &c.,  p.  1 6  n.). 

TO  IpyoK  ToG  Ko'iAou :  '  the  work,  course  of  conduct  belonging  to ' 
(i.e.  in  this  context  'required  by'  or  'in  accordance  with')  'the 
Law ' :  collective  use  of  fpyov  as  in  ver.  7  above. 

[Probably  not  as  Ewald  «p.  cit.  p.  17  after  Grotins,  e^uj  kgit  at  id,  fWM 
lex  in  Judaeis  efficit,  ntmpe  cognitio  liciti  tt  mititi.'\ 

<rufifiapTupouaT|s  aurui'  rrjs  auKciSi^o-eox.  This  phrase  is  almost 
exactly  repeated  in  ch.  ix.  i  (rv/MnapT.  fioi  Trjt  avvfid.  ftav.  In  both 
cases  the  conscience  is  separated  from  the  self  and  personified  as 
a  further  witness  standing  over  against  it.  Here  the  quality  of  the 
acts  themselves  is  one  witness,  and  the  approving  judgement  passed 
upon  them  by  the  conscience  is  another  concurrent  witness. 

tnvti^ftttt.  Some  such  distinction  as  this  is  sugi^^ested  by  the  original 
meaning  and  use  of  the  word  ffwdbriffn,  which  —  '  co-knowledge,'  the  know- 
ledge or  reflective  judgement  which  a  man  has  ly  tfu  sidt  of  ox  in  conjunction 
with  the  original  consciousness  of  the  act.  This  second  consciousness  is  easily 
projected  and  personihed  as  confronting  the  first. 

The  word  is  quoted  twice  from  Menander  (342-291  B.  c.),  M»n»tt.  597 
(cf.  654)  dwafTij/  iituv  if  ffWfiSijffis  9t6t  (^ed.  Didot,  pp.  101,103).  I*  is  sig- 
nificant that  both  the  word  and  the  idea  are  completely  absent  from  Aristotle. 
They  rise  into  philosophical  importance  in  the  more  introspective  moral 
teaching  of  the  Stoics.  The  two  forms,  rh  avvui6s  and  ^  awdhrjau  appear 
to  be  practically  convertible  Epictetus  {Fragm.  97)  compares  the  con- 
science to  a  7rai8aY(v7<it  in  a  passage  which  is  closely  parallel  to  the  comment 
of  Orij^en  on  this  verse  of  £p.  Rom.  (ed.  Lommatzsch,  vL  107)  tpiritut . , 


n.  16.]  TRANSITION  TO  THE  JEWS  6l 

mltU  paedagogm  ti  [sc.  animae]  quidam  sociatus  tt  rutor  ut  tarn  de  mtlioribm 
moruat  vel  dt  culpit  castiget  et  arguat. 

In  Biblical  Greek  the  word  occurs  first  with  its  fall  sense  in  Wisd.  xvii.  lo. 
[ll]  <i««  5i  irpoa(i\f]<pt  ri  x'^*"''^  [novrjpla]  tTvvtxofiivr)  ry  ffWfiSrjati.  In 
Philo  rd  cvvtii6s  is  the  form  used.  In  N.  T.  the  word  is  mainly  Pauline 
;occurring  in  the  speeches  of  Acts  xxiii.  i,  xxiv.  i6;  Rom.  i  and  2  Cor., 
JPast.  Epp.,  also  in  Heb.)  ;  elsewhere  only  in  i  Pet.  and  the  peric.  adult. 

iohn  viiL  9.     It  is  one  of  the  few  technical  terms  in  St.  Paul  which  seem  to 
ave  Greek  rather  than  Jewish  affinities. 

The  '  Conscience '  of  St.  Paul  is  a  natural  faculty  which  belongs  to  all 
men  alike  (Rom.  ii.  15),  and  pronounces  upon  the  character  of  actions,  both 
their  own  (a  Cor.  i.  la)  and  those  of  others  (a  Cor.  iv.  a,  v.  i  r).  It  can  be 
OTer-scrupuIous  (i  Cor.  x.  15),  but  is  blunted  or  '  seared  '  by  neglect  of  its 
warnings  (i  Tim.  iv.  a). 

The  usage  of  St.  Paul  corresponds  accurately  to  that  of  his  Stoic  con- 
temporaries, but  is  somewhat  more  restricted  than  that  which  obtains  in 
modem  times.  Conscience,  with  the  ancients,  was  the  faculty  which  passed 
judgment  upon  actions  after  they  were  done  (in  technical  language  the  con- 
tcientia  ttnsequens  moralis),  not  so  much  the  general  source  of  moral 
obligation.  In  the  passage  before  us  St.  Paul  speaks  of  such  a  source 
{lavroiis  *tai  ySfw?) ;  but  the  law  in  question  is  rather  generalized  from  the 
dictates  of  conscience  than  antecedent  to  them.  See  on  the  whole  subject 
a  treatise  by  Dr.  P.  Ewald,  D4  Vhu  XwtM^atm  »pud  itript.  N.  T.  vi  at 
potestat*  (Lipsiae,  18S3). 

fMTa|d  dXXif|X«r.  This  clause  is  taken  in  two  ways :  (i)  of  the 
'thoughts/  as  it  were,  personified,  Conscience  being  in  debate 
with  itself,  and  arguments  arising  now  on  the  one  side,  and  now  on 
the  other  (cf.  Shakspeare's  '  When  to  the  sessions  of  sweet  silent 
thought,  I  summon  up  remembrance  of  things  past  *) ;  in  this  case 
^Kra^v  dXX^Xaoif  almost  = 'alternately,'  *  in  mutual  debate';  (ii) 
taking  the  previous  part  of  the  verse  as  referring  to  the  decisions 
of  Conscience  when  in  private  it  passes  in  review  a  man's  own 
acts,  and  this  latter  clause  as  dealing  rather  with  its  judgements  on 
the  acts  of  the  others ;  then  \i.(Ta^  dXX^X«i>  will  =  *  between  one 
another,'  *  between  man  and  man,'  '  in  the  intercourse  of  man 
with  man ' ;  and  Xoyitr^Sv  will  be  the  '  arguments '  which  now 
take  one  side  and  now  the  other.  The  principal  argument  in 
favour  of  this  view  (which  is  that  of  Mey.  Gif.  Lips.)  is  the  em- 
phatic position  of  utra^v  dWrjKav,  which  suggests  a  contrast  between 
the  two  clauses,  as  if  they  described  two  different  processes  and 
not  merely  different  parts  or  aspects  of  the  same  process. 

There  it  a  curious  parallel  to  this  description  in  Astump.  Mays.  i.  13 
Creavit  enim  orbem  ttrrarum  prept*r  pltbetn  mam,  et  nou  coepit  earn 
inceptionem  crtaturae  .  .  .  palam  factre,  ut  imtagttttfs  mrguantur  et  kumili- 
ur  inter  te  disputationibus  mrgvamt  tt. 

Twf  Xoyi(r|iuiy :  the  Xoyurnoi  are  properly  '  thoughts '  conceived  in 
the  mind,  not '  arguments '  used  in  external  debate.  This  appears 
from  the  usage  of  the  word,  which  is  frequently  combined  with 
mapiuf  (TroXXot  Xoyt^/iok  iv  KapSlq  dv8p6s  Prov.  xix.  2 1 ;  cf.  Ps.  xxxli.  1 1  ; 
Prov.  vL  18):  it  is  used  of  secret  'plots'  (Jer.  zviii.   i9  dtur* 


6a  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [II.  16- 16 

Xayiaufitda  nrl  'Uptftiop  Xoyiafiof,  '  devisc  devices '),  and  of  the  Divine 
intentions  (Jer.  xxix  [xxxvi]  1 1  Xoytoifuu  f(t>  ifxds  Xoyta-n6»  tlprivrjt). 
In  the  present  passage  St.  Paul  is  describing  an  internal  process, 
though  one  which  is  destined  to  find  external  expression  ;  it  is  the 
process  by  which  are  formed  the  moral  judgements  of  men  apon 
their  fellows. 

'  The  conscience '  and  '  the  thoughts  *  both  belong  to  die  nme  pertont. 
This  is  rightly  seen  by  Klopper,  who  hu  written  at  length  on  the  passage 
before  n»  yPau^iniscke  Studien,  Kbnigsberg,  1887,  p.  10);  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  both  the  conscience  and  the  thoughts  are  exercised  upon  the  tame 
objects.  01  that  /xfTa^ii  dW'qXwv  naust  be  referred  to  the  thoughts  in  the 
sense  that  influences  from  without  are  excluded.  The  parallel  quoted  in 
support  of  this  Matt,  xviii.  15  ixtra^i)  aov  itai  aiirov  fi6vov)  dehTCi  that  part 
of  its  meaning  from  ^rov,  not  from  fura^i. 

^  Kai:  '  or  even,'  '  or  it  may  be,'  implying  that  diroX.  it  the  ex- 
ception, KaTTjy.  the  rule. 

16.  The  best  way  to  punctuate  is  probably  to  put  (in  English) 
a  colon  after  ver.  13,  and  a  semi-colon  at  the  end  of  ver.  15:  ver. 
16  goes  back  to  diKaicoO^a-ovrai  in  ver.  13,  or  rather  forms  a  conclu- 
sion to  the  whole  paragraph,  taking  up  again  the  tv  r^ntpa  of  ver.  5. 
The  object  of  vv.  13-15  is  to  explain  how  it  comes  about  that 
Gentiles  who  have  no  law  may  yet  be  judged  as  if  they  had  one : 
they  have  a  second  inferior  kind  of  law,  if  not  any  written  precepts 
yet  the  law  of  conscience ;  by  this  law  they  will  be  judged  when 
quick  and  dead  are  put  upon  their  trial. 

Orig.,  with  his  usual  acuteness,  sees  the  difficulty  of  connecting  tct.  16  with 
▼er.  15,  and  gives  an  answer  which  is  substantially  right  The  'thoughts 
accusing  and  condemning '  are  not  conceived  as  rising  up  at  the  last  day  but 
now.  They  leave  however  marks  behind,  v«lut  in  teru,  ita  in  tordt  nostn. 
These  marks  God  can  see  (ed.  Lomm.  p.  109). 

*v  '|(ji<p<^  St«  (it  \VH.  marg!) :  iv  f  ni^ifxf  B,  WH.  Uxt:  Ip  ijiiip^  ^  A, 
Pesh.  Boh.  a/.,  WH.  marg;. 

8id  Ttjo-oO  XpurroO  («/  WH.  inarg.) :  Sid  Xpirrov  'IijvoSKB,  Orig.,  Tisch. 
WH.  ttxt. 

apicci :  might  be  Kpivti,  as  R V.  marg.,  fiit  regarded  as  certain. 

aoxA  TO  tiia>fy£Ki6v  (lou.  The  point  to  which  St.  Paul's  Gospel, 
or  habitual  teaching,  bears  witness  is,  not  that  God  will  judge  the 
world  (which  was  an  old  doctrine),  but  that  He  will  judge  it  through 
Jesus  Christ  as  His  Deputy  (which  was  at  least  new  in  its  applica- 
tion, though  the  Jews  expected  the  Messiah  to  act  as  Judge,  Enoch 
ilv,  xlvi,  with  Charles'  notes). 

The  phrase  varcl  r3  tbaft.  lum  occurs  Rom.  ztL  %$,  ot  the  specially 
Pauline  doctrine  of  'free  grace';  a  Tim.  ii.  8,  (i)  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  from  the  dead,  (ii)  of  His  descent  from  the  seed  of  David. 

We  note  in  passing  the  not  very  intelligent  tradition  (introduced  by  ^<rl 
lU,  Eus.  ff.  E.  Ill  iv  8  I,  that  wherever  St.  Paul  spoke  of  'hit  Goaper  hi 
meant  the  Gospel  of  St.  Lake. 


II.  17-28.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  JEWS  6$ 


fahjTJRb  or  the  jews. 

II.  17-29.  TAf  Jew  may  boast  of  his  possession  of  a  special 
Revelation  and  a  written  Law,  but  all  the  time  his  practice 
shows  that  he  is  really  no  better  than  the  Gentile  (w.  17-24). 
And  if  he  takes  his  stand  on  Circumcision,  that  too  is  of 
value  only  so  far  as  it  is  moral  and  spiritual.  In  this  moral 
and  spiritual  circumcision  the  Gentile  also  may  share  (w. 
•5-29). 

*'  Do  jrou  tell  me  that  you  bear  the  proud  name  of  Jew,  that 
you  repose  on  a  written  law  as  the  charter  of  your  salvation  ?  Do 
you  boast  that  Jehovah  is  your  God,  "that  you  are  fully  ac- 
quainted with  His  revealed  Will,  that  you  adopt  for  yourself  a  high 
standard  and  listen  to  the  reading  of  the  Law  every  Sabbath-day  ? 
"  Do  you  give  yourself  out  with  so  much  assurance  as  a  guide  to 
the  poor  blind  Gentile,  a  luminary  to  enlighten  his  darkness  ?  •*  Do 
you  call  your  pupils  dullards  and  yourself  their  schoolmaster?  Are 
they  mere  infants  and  you  their  teacher?  You,  who  have  all 
knowledge  and  aH  truth  visibly  embodied  for  you  in  the  Law? 
•'  Boastful  Jew  I  How  does  your  practice  comport  with  your 
theory  ?  So  ready  to  teach  others,  do  you  need  no  teaching  your- 
self? The  eighth  "and  seventh  commandments  which  you  hold 
up  to  others — do  you  yourself  keep  them  ?  You  profess  to  loathe 
and  abhor  idols ;  but  do  you  keep  your  hands  from  robbing  their 
temples  ?  *•  You  vaimt  the  possession  of  a  law ;  and  by  the 
violation  of  that  law  you  a£front  and  dishonour  God  Who  gave  it. 
**As  Isaiah  wrote  that  the  Gentiles  held  the  Name  of  God  in 
contempt  because  they  saw  His  people  oppressed  and  enslaved,  so 
do  they  now  for  a  different  reason — becatise  of  the  gross  incon- 
sistency in  practice  of  those  who  claim  to  be  His  people. 

*  True  it  is  that  behind  the  Law  you  have  also  the  privilege  of 
Circumcision,  which  marks  the  people  of  Promise.  And  Circum- 
cision has  its  value  if  yon  are  a  law-performer.  But  if  you  are 
a  law-breaker  you  might  as  well  be  uncircumcised.  "  Does  it  not 
follow  that  if  the  uncircumcised  Gentile  keeps  the  weightier  statutes 
of  the  Moral  Law,  he  will  be  treated  as  if  he  were  circumcised  ? 
^  And  uncircumcised  as  he  is,  owing  to  his  Gentile  birth,  yet  if  hfl 


64  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [II.  17 

fulfils  the  Law,  his  example  will  (by  contrast)  condemn  70a  who 
with  the  formal  advantages  of  a  written  law  and  circumcision,  only 
break  the  law  of  which  you  boast.  "  For  it  is  not  he  who  has  the 
outward  and  visible  marks  of  a  Jew  who  is  the  true  Jew ;  neither 
is  an  outward  and  bodily  circumcision  the  true  circumcision. 
"But  he  who  is  inwardly  and  secretly  a  Jew  is  the  true  Jew;  and 
the  moral  and  spiritual  circumcision  is  that  which  really  deserves 
the  name.  The  very  word  '  Jew ' — descendant  of  Judah — means 
'praise'  (Gen.  xxix.  35).  And  such  a  Jew  has  his  'praise/  not 
from  man  but  from  God. 

17.  El  8^  M  A  B  D*  «/.,  Latt.  Pesh.  Boh.  Arm.  Aeth.,  *c. :  "i** 
D«L  al,  Hard.,  Chrys.  al.  The  authorities  for  «  ii  include  all  the 
oldest  MSS.,  all  the  leading  versions,  and  the  oldest  Fathers :  tte  is 
an  itacism  favoured  by  the  fact  that  it  makes  the  construction 
slightly  easier.  Reading  ci  ii  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence  begins 
at  ver.  21. 

'louSaios :  here  approaches  in  meaning  (as  in  the  mouth  of  a  Jew 
it  would  have  a  tendency  to  do)  to  'lo-poijXt'njr,  a  member  of  the 
Chosen  People,  opposed  to  the  heathen. 

Strictly  speaking,  'E^SpoTof,  opp.  "BXXtiviarfft,  calls  attention  to  language , 
louStudr,  opp.  'EXX17V,  calls  attention  to  nationality  ;  'la par^XiTrji  —  a  member 
of  the  theocracy,  in  possession  of  full  theocratic  privileges  (Tiench,  Syn 
$  xxxix,  p.  13a  S.).  The  word  'lovScuos  does  not  occur  in  LXX  (though 
lovSaXffndt  is  fonnd  four  times  in  2  Mace),  but  at  this  date  it  is  the  common 
word ;  'E^pcuos  and  Iffparj^TTjt  are  terms  reserved  by  the  Jews  themselves, 
the  one  to  distinguish  between  the  two  main  divisions  of  their  race  (the 
Palestinian  and  Greek-speaking),  the  other  to  describe  their  esoteric  status. 

For  the  Jew's  pride  in  his  privileges  comp.  4  Ezra  vi.  55  f.  katc  auttm 
omnia  dixi  coram  te,  Domine,  quoniam  dixisti  eat  (sc.  gtntes)  nil  tsse,  ti 

Juoniam  salivae  assimilata$  tuHt,  tt  quasi  itilliddium  d«  vast  rimilasH 
abundantiam  eorum. 

lT(ovo^6.\rn :  '  bearest  the  name ' :  irrovoiia^tiv^s.* Xo  impose  %  name, 
pass.  '  to  have  a  name  imposed.' 

^ira;'a-irau||  v6^^ :  '  have  a  law  to  lean  upon ' :  so  (without  art.) 
t^  A  B  D* ;  but  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  later  MSS.  should 
make  the  statement  more  definite,  '  lean  upon  the  Law.'  For  inav 
{requiescis  Vulg.)  cf.  Mic.  iii.  1 1 ;  Ezek.  xxix.  7  :  the  word  implies 
at  once  the  sense  of  support  and  the  saving  of  ill-directed  labour 
which  resulted  to  the  Jew  from  the  possession  of  a  law. 

iiou)faffai  Iv  ©ew  :  suggested  by  Jer.  ix.  24  '  let  him  that  glorieth 
glory  in  this,  that  he  under standeth  and  knoweth  Me,  that  I  am 
the  Lord.' 

Kavx&voi :  for  kqvx?,  stopping  at  the  first  step  In  the  process  of  con- 
tnictioa  {itayxatcai,  mavxaaai,  «at;x$).     This  it  one  of  the  forms  which  used 


II.  17-20.]  FAILURE  OF  THE  JEWS  65 

to  be  called  '  Alexandrine,'  but  which  fimply  belong  to  the  popular  Greek 
current  at  the  time  (Hort,  Introd.  p.  304).  wauxScai  occurs  also  in  i  Cor. 
iv.  7,  tcarcucavxaaai  Rom.  xL  18  ;  comp.  oSwaaat  Luke  xvi.  25,  and  from  «n- 
contracted  verbs,  <piy«Tat  .  .  .  vifaai  Luke  xvii.  8,  Svvaaat  Matt.  v.  36  (but 
ivvfj  Mark  ix.  a  a)  ;  see  Win.  Gr.  xiii.  a  4  (p.  90). 

18.  t6  9^T|fjia.  Bp.  Lightfoot  has  shown  that  this  phrase  was 
BO  constantly  used  for  '  the  Divine  Will '  that  even  without  the  art. 
it  might  have  that  signification,  as  in  i  Cor.  xvi.  12  {On  Revision, 
p.  106  ed.  I,  p.  118  ed.  a). 

8oKi|jidtcis  tA  Sia^^pon'a :  prohas  utiliora  Cod.  Clarom.  Rufin. 
Vulg. ;  non  modo  prae  malis  bona  sed  in  bonis  optima  Bang,  on 
Phil.  i.  10,  where  the  phrase  recurs  exactly.  Both  words  are 
ambiguous :  ioKifiaCav  =  (i)  '  to  test,  assay,  discern ' ;  (ii)  *  to 
approve  after  testing'  (see  on  i.  a8);  and  ra  8ia(fifpnvra  may  be 
either  '  things  which  differ,'  or  '  things  which  stand  out.  or  excel.' 
Thus  arise  the  two  interpretations  represented  in  RV.  and  RV. 
marg.,  with  a  like  division  of  commentators.  The  rendering  of 
RV.  marg.  ('provest  the  things  that  differ,'  'hast  experience  of 
good  and  bad '  Tyn.)  has  the  support  of  Euthym.-Zig.  (SiaKpiven  to 

hia(\ispovTa  oKKifKav'  olov  Ka\hv  koi  KaK6vy  dpeTrjv  Koi  KOKiav),  Fri.  De  W. 

Oltr.  Go.  Lips.  Mou.  The  rendering  of  RV.  ('approvest  the 
things  that  are  excellent')  is  adopted  by  Latt.  Orig.  [i/a  ut  non 
solum  quae  sint  bona  scias,  verum  eiiam  quae  sint  meliora  et  utiliora 
discernas),  most  English  Versions,  Mey.  Lft.  Gif.  Lid.  (Chrys.  does 
not  distinguish ;  Va  is  undecided).  The  second  rendering  is  the 
more  pointed. 

KaTi]xou/iefos  i*.  toC  v6^o»  :  cf.  Acts.  xv.  ai. 

19.  irliroiOas  «.r.X.  The  common  constniction  after  irimoiBas  is  on :  ace. 
and  infin.  is  very  rare.  It  seems  better,  with  Vaughan,  to  take  aeavr6v 
closely  with  viitoiOas, '  and  art  persuaded  as  to  thyself  that  thou  art,'  &c. 

oSTryiv  .  .  .  Tv<t)Xwv.  It  is  natural  to  compare  Matt.  xv.  14  rv<p\oi  tlmv 
dStjyol  rv<p\S)v  k.t.K.  ;  also  xxiii.  16, 34.  Lips,  thinks  that  the  first  saying  was 
present  to  the  mind  of  the  Apostle.  It  would  not  of  course  follow  that  it 
was  current  in  writing,  though  that  too  is  possible.  On  the  other  hand  the 
expression  may  have  been  more  or  less  proverbial :  comp.  Wiinsche,  Erldut. 
d.  Evang.  on  Matt,  xxiii.  16.  The  same  epithet  was  given  by  a  Galilaean 
to  R.  Chasda,  Baba  Kama  fol.  5  a  a.  '  When  the  Shepherd  is  angry  with  the 
sheep  he  blinds  their  leader;  i.e.  when  God  determines  to  punish  the 
Israelites,  He  gives  them  unworthy  mlers.' 

20.  iraiScuT^i':  'a  schoolmaster,'  with  the  idea  of  discipline, 
correction,  as  well  as  teaching ;  cf.  Heb.  xii.  9. 

vr^tAviv'.  'infants,'  opp.  to  reXftot,  'adults,'  as  in  Heb.  v.  13,  14. 

|t6p<^(iKnv :  '  outline,'  '  delineation,'  '  embodiment.'  As  a  rule 
vyjipa  =  outward  form  as  opp.  to  inward  substance,  while  Hop^"? 
=  outward  form  as  determined  by  inward  substance ;  so  that 
(Tx^fw  is  the  variable,  \iop^i]  the  permanent,  element  in  things :  see 
Lft.  Phil.  p.  125  ff.;  Sp.  Comm.  on  i  Cor.  vii.  31.  Nor  does  the 
present  passage  conflict  with  this  distinction.    The  Law  was  a  reaJ 


66  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [ll.  20-28 

expression  of  Divine  truth,  so  far  as  it  went.  It  is  more  difficult  to 
account  for  a  Tim.  iii.  5  fX"*^**  ftSptpata-tv  tiatBtiat  t^*  8»  bvvaiut 
mrrrjs  fjpvtjfitvoi. 

See  however  Lft.  in  Joum.  of  Class,  and  Sacr.  Philol.  (1857)  iii.  115 
'  They  will  observe  that  in  two  passages  where  St.  Paul  doet  speak  of  that 
which  is  nnreal  or  at  least  external,  and  does  not  employ  ax^fM,  he  still 
avoids  using  fwp<p^  as  inappropriate,  and  adopts  n6p<pwait  instead  (Rom.  ii. 
30 ;  3  Tim.  iii.  5),  where  the  termination  -wais  denotes  "  the  aiming  after  or 
affecting  the  fiop<frfi." '     Can  this  quite  be  made  good  f 

21.  oiv:  resumptive,  introducing  the  apodosis  to  the  long  pro- 
tasis in  w.  17-20.  After  the  string  of  points,  suspended  as  it  were 
in  the  air,  by  which  the  Apostle  describes  the  Jew's  complacency, 
he  now  at  last  comes  down  with  his  emphatic  accusation.  Here 
is  the  '  Thou  art  the  man '  which  we  have  been  expecting  since 
ver.  I. 

KXI-iTTtiv :  infin.  becanse  itrjp^aam'  contains  the  idea  of  command. 

22.  pScXuao-cS/jiei'os :  used  of  the  expression  of  physical  disgust, 
esp,  of  the  Jew's  horror  at  idolatry. 

Note  the  piling  up  of  phrases  in  Dent.  vii.  a6  «tai  ov/r  tltxolwM  $i{\vyiM 
[here  of  the  gold  and  silver  plates  with  which  idols  were  overlaid]  tU 
Tdv  oJkov  ffov,  Kai  lajj  av&Orjiia  wawtp  tovto.  rpoaoxOi^<yi^ci'''t  irpoaoxOifts  koX 
PS(\vyiJiaTi  )35e\v^p,  on  dvaOrjpA  iariv.  Comp.  also  Dan.  xii.  il  ;  Matt.  xxIt. 
15,  &c.  One  of  the  ignominies  of  captivity  was  to  be  compelled  to  carry 
the  idols  of  the  heathen  :  Assumf.  Mays.  viii.  4  ctgentur  palam  baiulart  idola 
eorum  iuquinata. 

i€pocruXeis.  The  passage  just  quoted  (Deut.  vii.  a6  with  25), 
Joseph.  Ani.  IV.  viii.  10,  and  Acts  xix.  37  (where  the  town-clerk 
asserts  that  St.  Paul  and  his  companions  were  '  not  iepoavXoi)  show 
that  the  robbery  of  temples  was  a  charge  to  which  the  Jews  were 
open  in  spite  of  their  professed  horror  of  idol-worship. 

There  were  provisions  in  the  Talmud  which  expressly  guarded  against 
this :  everything  which  had  to  do  with  an  idol  was  a  ^SiKvy/M  to  him  unless 
it  had  been  previously  desecrated  by  Gentiles.  But  for  this  the  Jew  might 
have  thought  that  in  depriving  the  heathen  of  their  idol  he  was  doing  a  good 
work.  See  the  passages  in  Delitzsch  ad  Uk.  ;  also  on  UpoavKla,  which  must 
not  be  interpreted  too  narrowly,  Lft.,  £ss.  en  Supem.  Rtl.  p.  399  t ; 
Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empirt,  p.  144  n.,  where  it  is  noted 
that  UpoavKia  was  just  one  of  the  crimes  which  a  provincial  governor  could 
proceed  against  by  his  own  imperium. 

The  Eng.  Versions  of  UpoavKtis  group  themselves  thus :  '  robbest  God  of 
his  honour'  Tyn.  Cran.  Genev. ;  'doest  sacrilege'  (ot  equivalent)  Wic. 
Rhem.  AV.  RV.  marg^. ;  '  dost  rob  temples '  RV. 

23.  It  is  probably  best  not  to  treat  this  verse  as  a  question. 
The  questions  which  go  before  are  collected  by  a  summary  accu- 
sation. Gif.,  with  a  delicate  sense  of  Greek  composition,  sees 
a  hint  of  this  in  the  change  from  participles  to  the  lelative  and 

indie  ^o  8i8aaK<ov  .  .  .  OS  Kavxatrat). 


II.  «i-27.J  FAILURE  OF  THE  JEWS  O? 

24.  A  free  adaptation  of  Is.  Ui.  6  (LXX).  Heb.  *  And  con- 
tinually all  the  day  long  My  Name  is  blasphemed ' :  LXX  adds  to 
this  dt'  vfMs  and  Vr  roU  t6vt<ru>.  St  Panl  omits  diaiTaPT6s  and  changes 
Hov  to  Tov  Qeov. 

The  original  meant  that  the  Name  of  God  was  reviled  by  the 
tyrants  and  oppressors  of  Israel :  St.  Paul,  following  up  a  suggestion 
in  the  LXX  (dt  iifMs),  traces  this  reviling  to  the  scandal  caused 
by  Israel's  inconsistency.  The  fact  that  the  formula  of  quotation 
is  thrown  to  the  end  shows  that  he  is  conscious  of  applying  the 
passage  freely :  it  is  almost  as  if  it  were  an  after-thought  that  the 
language  he  has  just  used  is  a  quotation  at  alL  See  the  longer 
note  on  ch.  x,  below. 

85.  v6uov  irpdo-(rx)s.  On  the  absence  of  the  art.  tee  especially  the  scholarly 
note  in  Va.  :  '  It  is  almost  as  if  voftov  vpiacrtiv  and  vSiiov  -napa^&Tijs  were 
severally  like  vofio9fT(tv,  vono(pv\aKHv,  &c.,  vofioOiTtjt,  vonoSiSaaKaXos,  &c., 
one  compound  word:  if  thou  be  a  law-doer  . .  .  if  thou  be  a  law-transgresior, 
&c,  indicating  the  character  of  the  person,  rather  than  calling  attention  to 
the  particular/or*f  or  designation  of  the  law,  which  claims  obedience.* 

-^iyoy&t:  'is  by  that  very  fact  become.'  Del.  quotes  the  realistic  ex* 
pression  given  to  this  idea  in  the  Jewish  fancy  that  God  would  send  hit 
angel  to  remove  the  marks  of  circumcision  on  the  wicked. 

26.  €is  irepiT0|jif)K  XoyiaOiqatTai :  'Koyl(,«T6at  tXs  t»  =  \oyi(f(T0at  th  tA 
tumi  Tt,  fls  denoting  result,  '  so  as  to  be  in  place  of,'  '  reckoned  as 
a  substitute  or  equivalent  for '  (Fri.,  Grm.-Thay.  s.  v.  Xoyifo/ia»  i  a). 

Of  the  synonyms  TrifxTv,  (pvXiaattp,  TiXflV ;  njptiv  »  '  to  keep  an  eye  upon,' 
'  to  observe  carefully '  (and  then  do) ;  <pv\i<Tauy  =  '  to  guard  as  a  deposit' 
*  to  preserve  intact '  against  violence  from  without  or  within ;  rtKuv  =  '  to 
bring  (a  law)  to  its  proper  fulfilment '  in  action ;  rrfpuv  and  <pvKdaa fiv  are 
both  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  agent,  rcXctc  from  that  of  the  law  which 
is  obeyed.    See  Westcott  on  Jo.  xvii.  i  a ;  i  Jo.  ii.  3. 

27.  Kpicei :  most  probably  categorical  and  not  a  question  as 
AV.  and  RV. ;  =  '  condemn '  by  comparison  and  contrast,  as  in 
Matt.  xii.  41,  4a  'the  men  of  Nineveh  shall  stand  up  in  the  judge- 
ment with  this  generation  and  shall  condemn  it,'  &c.  Again  we 
are  pointed  back  to  w.  1-3 ;  the  judge  of  others  shall  be  himself 
judged. 

^  Ik  (|)Ja€(>)s  dicpoPuoTia :  uncircumcision  which  physically  re- 
mains as  it  was  born.  The  order  of  the  words  seems  opposed  to 
Prof.  Burton's  rendering,  *the  uncircumcision  which  by  nature 
fulfils  the  law'  («'«  (pva-.sztjiva-fi  V.  14). 

Bid  of  'attendant  circumstances'  as  in  iv.  11,  viiL  25,  xiv.  20; 
Anglicfe  '  with,'  with  all  your  advantages  of  circumcision  and  the 
possession  of  a  written  law. 

The  distinction  between  the  literal  Israel  which  is  after  the  flesh 
and  the  true  spiritual  Israel  is  a  leading  idea  with  St.  Paul  and 
is  worked  out  at  length  in  ix.  6  ff. ;  see  also  pp.  a,  14  sup.  We  may 

w  a 


68  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [11.  27-28 

compare  Phil.  iii.  3,  where  St.  Paul  claims  that  Christians  represent 
the  true  circumcision. 

28  &  4v  T^  4>av<p$.  The  Greek  of  thU  and  the  next  verse  is  elliptical, 
and  there  is  some  ambiguity  as  to  how  much  belongs  to  the  subject  and  how 
much  to  the  predicate.  Even  accomplished  scholars  like  Dr.  Gifford  and 
Dr.  Vanghan  differ.  The  latter  has  some  advantage  in  symmetry,  making 
the  missing  words  in  both  clauses  belong  to  the  subject  ('  Not  he  who  Is 
[«  Jew]  outwardly  is  a  Jew  .  .  .  but  he  who  is  [a  Jew]  in  secret  is  a  Jew')  ; 
but  it  is  a  drawback  to  this  view  of  the  construction  that  it  separates  irtpiTo/iij 
and  KapKias :  Gif.,  as  it  seems  to  us  rightly,  combines  these  ('  he  which  is 
inwardly  a  Jew  [is  truly  a  Jew],  and  circumcision  of  heart  ...  [is  tme 
circumcision ']).     Similarly  Lips.  Weiss  (but  not  Mey.). 

29.  ircpiTOfif)  KopSias.  The  idea  of  a  spiritual  (heart-)  circum- 
cision goes  back  to  the  age  of  Deuteronomy;  DeuL  x.  16  ntpm- 

fjLuadf  TT]v  aKKrjpoKap^iav   vpimv  :   Jer.  iv.  4  ■nfpiTfjLr\6r]Tt  ra  ©*«  ifi&v,  Koi 

v(piT(p(a-6f  Tr]v  aiCKripoKapbiav  vpS)p :  cf.  Jer.  ix.  26 ;  Ezek.  xliv.  1 ; 
Acts  vii.  51.  Justin  works  out  elaborately  the  idea  of  the  Christian 
circumcision,  Dial.  c.  Tryph  114. 

A  Ittoivos.  We  believe  that  Dr.  Gifford  was  the  first  to  point 
out  that  there  is  here  an  evident  play  on  the  name  *  Jew ' :  Judah 
«'  Praise  '  (cf.  Gen.  xxix.  35 ;  xlix.  8). 


OASniSTICAIi    OBJBCTIOW8    ANSWBItBD. 

ni.  1-8.  This  argument  may  suggest  three  objections: 
\)  If  the  moral  Gentile  is  better  off  than  the  immoral  Jew^ 
what  becomes  of  the  Jew's  advantages  ? — ANSWER.  He  still 
has  many.  His  [e.g.)  are  the  promises  (w.  1-2).  (ii)  But 
has  not  the  Jews  unbelief  cancelled  those  promises? — 
Answer.  No  unbelief  on  the  part  of  man  can  affect  th$ 
pledged  word  of  God:  it  only  serves  to  enhance  His  faithful- 
ness (w.  3,  4).  (iii)  If  that  is  the  result  of  his  action,  why 
should  man  be  judged? — ANSWER.  He  certainly  will  b* 
judged:  we  may  not  say  {as  I  am  falsely  accused  of  saying\ 
Do  evil  that  good  may  come  (w.  5-8). 

^  If  the  qualifications  which  God  requires  are  thus  inward  and 
spiritual,  an  objector  may  urge.  What  becomes  of  the  privileged 
position  of  the  Jew,  his  descent  from  Abraham,  and  the  like  ? 
What  does  he  gain  by  his  circumcision  ?  *  He  does  gain  much 
(Ml  all  sides.     The  first  gain  is  that  to  the  Jews  were  committed 


ni.  1-8.]     CASUISTICAL  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  69 

the  prophecies  of  the  Messiah.  [Here  the  subject  breaks  off; 
a  fuller  enumeration  is  given  in  ch.  ix.  4,  5.] 

'You  say,  But  the  Jews  by  their  unbelief  have  forfeited  their 
share  in  those  prophecies.  And  I  admit  that  some  Jews  have 
rejected  Christianity,  in  which  they  are  fulfilled.  What  then? 
The  promises  of  God  do  not  depend  on  man.  He  will  keep  His 
word,  whatever  man  may  do.  *  To  suggest  otherwise  were 
blasphemy.  Nay,  God  must  be  seen  to  be  true,  though  all  man- 
kind are  convicted  of  falsehood.  Just  as  in  Ps.  li  the  Psaknist 
confesses  that  the  only  effect  of  his  own  sin  will  be  that  (in 
forensic  metaphor)  God  will  be  *  declared  righteous '  in  His  sayings 
[the  promises  just  mentioned],  and  gain  His  case  when  it  is  brought 
to  trial 

'A  new  objection  arises.  If  our  unrighteousness  is  only 
a  foil  to  set  oflF  the  righteousness  of  God  would  not  God  be  unjust 
who  punishes  men  for  sin  ?  (Speaking  of  God  as  if  He  were  man 
can  hardly  be  avoided.)  •  That  too  were  blasphemy  to  think !  If 
any  such  objection  were  sound,  God  could  not  judge  the  world. 
But  we  know  that  He  will  judge  it.  Therefore  the  reasoning  must 
be  fallacious. 

^If,  you  say,  as  in  the  case  before  us,  the  truthfuhiess  of 
God  in  performing  His  promises  is  only  thrown  into  relief  by  my 
infidelity,  which  thus  redounds  to  His  glory,  why  am  I  still  like 
other  offenders  (koi)  brought  up  for  judgement  as  a  sinner  ? 

•  So  the  objector.  And  I  know  that  this  charge  of  saying 
*  Let  us  do  evil  that  good  may  come '  is  brought  with  slanderous 
exaggeration  against  me — as  if  the  stress  which  I  lay  on  faith 
compared  with  works  meant,  Never  mind  what  your  actions  are, 
provided  only  that  the  end  you  have  in  view  is  right. 

All  I  will  say  is  that  the  judgement  which  these  sophistical 
reasoners  will  receive  is  richly  deserved. 

Iff.  It  is  characteristic  of  this  Epistle  that  St.  Paul  seems 
to  imagine  himself  face  to  face  with  an  opponent,  and  that  he 
discusses  and  answers  arguments  which  an  opponent  might  bring 
against  him  (so  iii.  iff.,  iv.  iff.,  vi.  iff.,  15 ff.,  vii.  yff.).  No 
doubt  this  is  a  way  of  presenting  the  dialectical  process  in  his  own 
mind.  But  at  the  same  time  it  is  a  way  which  would  seem  to 
have  been  suggested  by  actual  experience  of  controversy  with 
Jews  and  the  narrower  Jewish  Christians.    We  are  told  expressly 


70  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [UI.  1,  & 

that  the  charge  of  saying  '  Let  ns  do  evil  that  good  may  come ' 

was  brought  as  a  matter  of  fact  against  the  Apostle  (ver.  8).  And 
vi.  1,  15  restate  this  charge  in  Pauline  language.  The  Apostle 
as  it  were  takes  it  up  and  gives  it  out  again  as  if  it  came  in  the 
logic  of  his  own  thought.  And  the  other  charge  of  levelling  down 
all  the  Jew's  privileges,  of  ignoring  the  Old  Testament  and  dis- 
paraging its  saints,  was  one  which  must  as  inevitably  have  been 
brought  against  St.  Paul  as  the  like  charges  were  brought  against 
Si.  Stephen  (Acts  vi.  13  f.).  It  is  probable  however  that  Sl  Paul 
had  himself  wrestled  with  this  question  long  before  it  was  pointed 
against  him  as  a  weapon  in  controversy ;  and  he  propounds  it  in 
the  order  in  which  it  would  naturally  arise  in  that  stress  of  reason- 
ing, pro  and  con.,  which  went  to  the  shaping  of  his  own  system. 
The  modified  form  in  which  the  question  comes  up  the  second 
time  (ver.  9)  shows — if  our  interpretation  is  correct — that  St.  Paul  is 
there  rather  following  out  hi*  own  thought  than  contending  with 
an  adversary. 

1.  tA  Trepiaa6v.  That  which  encircles  a  thing  necessarily 
lies  outside  it.  Hence  ntpi  would  seem  to  have  a  latent  meaning 
*  beyond,'  which  is  appropriated  rather  by  rripa,  nipav,  but  comes  out 
in  TTfpiaaoi,  '  that  which  is  in  excess,'  '  over  and  above.' 

2.  trpuToi'  y,iv :  intended  to  be  followed  by  firtira  dt,  but  the  line 
of  argument  is  broken  off"  and  not  resumed,  A  list  of  privileges 
such  as  might  have  followed  here  is  given  in  ch.  ix.  4. 

vpwTov  n\v  fip :  om.  fip  B  D*  E  G  iminutc.  pom.,  vtrtt.  ptmr.^  Chiys. 
Orig.-lat.  al.,  [7ap]  WH. 

i7ri<rr€iJ9Ti(rav.  TriaTtuw,  in  the  sense  of '  entrust,'  '  confide,'  takes  ace.  of 
the  thing  entrnsted,  dat.  of  the  person ;  e.  g.  Jo.  iL  34  i>  SJ  'I^aoCj  oi*  lir«- 
ffTtvty  iavrdv  [rather  airbv  or  avroy']  airois.  In  the  passive  the  dat 
becomes  nom.,  and  the  ace.  remains  unchanged  ( Buttmann,  pp.  175, 189, 190; 
Winer,  xxxii.  5  [p.  287] ;  of.  i  Cor.  ix.  17 ;  Gal.  ii.  7). 

tA  XcSyia.  St.  Paul  might  mean  by  this  the  whole  of  the  O.  T. 
regarded  as  the  Word  of  God,  but  he  seems  to  have  in  view  rather 
those  utterances  in  it  which  stand  out  as  most  unmistakably  Divine ; 
the  Law  as  given  from  Sinai  and  the  promises  relating  to  the 
Messiah. 

The  old  account  of  XSyiw  aa  a  dimin.  of  kiyot  \a  probably  conect,  though 
Mey.-W.  make  it  neut.  of  ^dyiot  on  the  ground  that  KoyiSiov  is  the  proper 
dimin.  The  form  KoyiSiov  is  rather  a  strengthened  dimin.,  which  by  a  process 
common  in  language  took  the  place  of  Koyiov  when  it  acquired  the  special 
■ense  of  'oracle.'  From  Herod,  downwards  Kdftop  =  'oracle'  as  a  brief 
condensed  saying;  and  so  it  came  to  =  any  'inspired,  divine  ntterancej: 
e.  g.  in  Philo  of  the  '  prophecies'  and  of  the  '  ten  commandments '  {irtpl  tSi9 
SUa  Koyiwv  is  the  title  of  Philo's  treatise).  So  in  LXX  the  expression  is 
ssed  of  the  '  word  of  the  Lord '  five  times  in  Isaiah  and  frequently  in  th« 
Psalms  (no  less  than  seventeen  times  in  Ps.  cxix  [cxviii]).  From  this  usage 
It  was  natural  that  it  should  be  transferred  to  the  'sayings'  of  the  Lord 
Jesw  (Polyc  a/  PkiJ.  vii.  i   tt  &y  fxteoitit  tA  Kiytm  rw  Ki/ptov :  cf.  Iren. 


III.  a-4.]     CASUISTICAL   OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  7 1 

Adv.  Haer.  i  piaef. ;  also  Weiss,  Einl.  §  5.  4).  But  from  the  time  of  Philo 
onwards  the  word  was  used  of  any  sacred  writbg,  whether  discourse  01 
narrative ;  so  that  it  is  a  disputed  point  whether  the  Xo-^ia  rod  Kvpiov  whick 
Papias  ascribes  to  St.  Matthew,  as  well  as  his  own  \oylwv  Kvpiavwv  t(r/yr]a(it 
(Eus.  //.  E.  III.  xxxix.  16  and  i)  were  or  were  not  limited  to  discourse  (see 
especially  Lightfoot,  Ess.  on  Supem.  Ret.  p.  173  ff.). 

8.  i[Jti(m\irav  .  .  .  dirioria.  Do  these  words  refer  to  *  unbelief 
(Mey.  Gif.  Lid.  Oltr.  Go.)  or  to  '  unfaithfulness '  (De  W.  Weiss 
Lips.  Va.)  ?  Probably,  on  the  whole,  the  former  :  because  (i)  the 
main  point  in  the  context  is  the  disbelief  in  the  promises  of  the 
O.  T.  and  the  refusal  to  accept  them,  as  fulfilled  in  Christ;  (ii) 
chaps,  ix-xi  show  that  the  problem  of  Israel's  unbelief  weighed 
heavily  on  the  Apostle's  mind  ;  (iii)  'unbelief  is  the  constant  sense 
of  the  word  (dmo-T«<a  occurs  seven  times,  in  which  the  only  apparent 
exception  to  this  sense  is  2  Tim.  ii.  13,  and  dnurria  eleven  times, 
with  no  clear  exception) ;  (iv)  there  is  a  direct  parallel  in  ch.  xi.  20 

rg  anicTTiq  t^eKKaffdrja-av,  aii  8e  rj]  iriarfi  eoTrxas.      At    the   Same    time 

the  one  sense  rather  suggests  than  excludes  the  other ;  so  that  tht: 
amcrria  of  man  is  naturally  contrasted  with  the  niaris  of  God 
(of.  Va.). 

iriony :  '  faithfulness '  to  His  promises ;  cf.  Lam.  iiL  23  noKXh  ij 
v/oTtr  trov  :  Ps.  Sol.  viii.  35  ^  niaTis  aov  fxtff  fj^iaiv. 

naTapyi^O'Ci.  Karapytlv  (from  Kara  causative  and  apy6i  =  atpyoi) 
= '  to  render  inert  or  inactive ' :  a  characteristic  word  with  St.  Paul, 
occurring  twenty-five  times  in  his  writings  (including  3  Thess. 
Eph.  a  Tim.),  and  only  twice  elsewhere  (Lk.  Heb.)  :  =  (i)  in 
a  material  sense,  '  to  make  sterile  or  barren,'  of  soil  Lk.  xiii.  7, 

cf.  Rom.  vi.  6  Xva   Karapyrjdr]  to  <ra>fia   ttjs  dfnaprias,  '  that  the  body  aS 

an  instrument  of  sin  may  be  paralysed,  rendered  powerless ' ; 
(ii)  in  a  figurative  sense,  '  to  render  invalid,'  '  abrogate,'  '  abolish  ' 
{rffv  hrayyfkiav  Gal.  iii.  17  J   v6p,ov  Rom.  iii.  31). 

4.  (i^  Y^KOiTO :  a  formula  of  negation,  repelling  with  horror 
something  previously  suggested.  '  Fourteen  of  the  fifteen  N.  1". 
instances  are  in  Paul's  writings,  and  in  twelve  of  them  it  expresses 
the  Apostle's  abhorrence  of  an  inference  which  he  fears  may  be 
falsely  drawn  from  his  argument'  (Burton,  M.  and  7.  §  177  ;  cf 
also  Lft.  on  Gal.  ii.  17). 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  vehement  impulsive  style  of  this  group  of  Epp 
that  the  phrase  is  confined  to  them  (ten  times  in  Rom.,  once  in  i  Cor.,  twice 
in  Gal.).  It  occurs  live  times  in  LXX,  not  however  standing  alone  as  here, 
but  worked  into  the  body  of  the  sentence  (cf.  Gen.  xliv.  7,  17  ;  Josh.  ixii.  29, 
sxIt.  16 ;  I  Kings  xx  [xxi].  3). 

ywMia :  see  on  i.  3  above ;  the  transition  which  the  verb 
denotes  is  often  from  a  latent  condition  to  an  apparent  condition. 
and  so  here,  '  prove  to  be,'  '  be  seen  to  be.' 

dXT)di]s :  as  keeping  His  plighted  word. 


7a  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [ill.  4,  ft. 

4>«i!<rTT]«  :  in  asserting  that  God's  promises  have  not  been  fulfilled. 

Kadus  Y^YP*^*^*^  •  *  -^^^»  as  it  stands  written.'  The  quotation  is 
exact  from  LXX  of  Ps.  li  [1].  6.  Note  the  mistranslations  in  LXX 
(which  St.  Paul  adopts),  viKfjo-jis  (or  wK^o-nr)  for  tnsons  sis,  «V  ry 
Kpivta-dai  (pass.)  for  t'n  iudicando  or  dum  iudicat.  The  sense  of  the 
original  is  that  the  Psalmist  acknowledges  the  justice  of  God*8 
judgement  upon  him.  The  result  of  his  sin  is  that  God  is  pro- 
nounced righteous  in  His  sentence,  free  from  blame  in  His  judging. 
St.  Paul  applies  it  as  if  the  Most  High  Himself  were  put  upon  trial 
and  declared  guiltless  in  respect  to  the  promises  which  He  has 
fulfilled,  though  man  will  not  believe  in  their  fulfilment. 

tints  dv  X  Sit  points  to  an  nnczpresscd  condition,  '  in  case  •  dediioa  is 
given.' 

SiKaiuOrfs :  '  that  thou  mightest  be  pronounced  righteous '  by 
the  judgement  of  mankind ;  see  p.  30  f.  above,  and  compare  Matt.  xi. 

19  /cat  ihi<aii>6rj  if  aro(f>ia  dno  rav  tpyav  (v.  1.  rtKvav  :  cf.  Lk.  vii.  35) 
avrrji.      Test,  XII  Pair.  Sym.  6  on-ttr  iiKaiaOa  aiTo  ri);  ifiaprias  r»v 

y^tvxvv  vfiav.  Ps.  Sol.  ii.  16  €ya)  iuuuixToi  vf  6  Qt6t.  The  usage 
occurs  repeatedly  in  this  book ;  see  Ryle  and  James  ad  loc. 

iv  Tois  X<5yois  aou:  not  '  pleadings'  (Va.)  but  '  sayings,'  Le.  the 
Voyio  just  mentioned.     Heb.  probably  =  *  judicial  sentence.' 

riKT)(rT)s  :  like  vincere,  of  '  gaining  a  suit,'  opp.  to  ^rrmrdot :  the 
full  phrase  is  vKav  t^v  d«ijv  (Eur.  El.  955,  &c.). 

vurfjo^s,  B  G  K  L  &c. ;  viitfjattt  K  A  D  £,  minute,  aliq.  Probably  ruHfOttt 
is  right,  because  of  the  agreement  of  K  A  with  the  older  types  of  Western 
Text,  thus  representing  two  great  families.  The  reading  viic^a^s  in  B  appa- 
rently belongs  to  the  small  Western  element  in  that  MS.,  which  wonld  seem 
to  be  allied  to  that  in  G  rather  than  to  that  in  D.  There  is  a  similar 
''actuation  in  MSS.  of  the  LXX  :  vncrjant  is  the  reading  of  K  B  {def.  A), 
0iiefiffui  of  some  fourteen  cursives.  The  text  of  LXX  need  by  St  Panl  differs 
not  aeldom  from  that  of  the  great  oncials. 

KpiKcaOai :  probably  not  mid.  ('  to  enter  upon  trial,'  '  go  to  law,' 
lit.  'get  judgment  for  oneself)  as  Mey.  Go.  Va.  Lid.,  but  pass, 
as  in  ver.  7  (so  Vulg.  Weiss  Kautzsch,  &c. ;  see  the  arguments 
from  the  usage  of  LXX  and  Heb.  in  Kautzsch,  £>e  Vet.  Test.  Ltcit 
a  Paulo  allegatis,  p.  34  n.). 

6.  ifj  dSiKia  iqfjiuK:  a  general  statement,  including  amarla.  In 
like  manner  e«ov  biKawavvrfv  is  general,  though  the  particular 
instance  which  St  Paul  has  in  his  mind  is  the  faithfulness  of  God 
to  His  promises. 

ffufioTTiai :  avvloTujfu  {avpurTavm)  has  in  N.  T.  two  conspicuous 
meanings :  (i)  '  to  bring  together '  as  two  persons,  '  to  introduce  * 
or  '  commend'  to  one  another  (e.g.  Rom.  xvi.  i ;  a  Cor.  iii.  i;  iv.  a; 
V.    13,    &C. ;    cf.    avaraTiiuu   fniaroXai    a    Cof.   Hi.    l) ;    (ii)   *  tO   put 

together'  or  'make  good'  by  argument,  'to  prove,'  'establish' 


in.  6-7.J      CASUISTICAL  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  73 

{compositis  colUcHsqut  quae  rem  contineant  argumentis  aliquid  docec 
Fritzsche),  as  in  Rom.  v.  8 ;  s  Cor.  vii.  11 ;  Gal.  ii.  18  (where  see 
LfL  and  £U.). 

Both  meanings  are  recognized  by  Hesych.  (crwicrrdveiv  iiraivfiv,  (pavepovv, 
fieffatovv,  iraparidivai)  ;  but  it  is  strange  that  neither  comes  out  clearly  in  the 
uses  of  the  word  in  LXX  ;  the  second  is  found  in  Susann.  61  aviaTTjaav 
iirX  rovs  Svo  irpearfivras,  on  auv4(Trr}<Tev  aiirohs  ^aviiiK  ipeoSoiiapropiia'avTas 
(Theod.). 

Ti  IpoCficr :  another  phrase,  like  /xfi  yivotro,  which  is  charac- 
teristic  of  this  Epistle,  where  it  occurs  seven  times ;  not  elsewhere 
in  N.  T. 

|if)  081KOS :  the  form  of  question  shows  that  a  negative  answer  is 
expected  (/*^  originally  meant '  Don't  say  that,'  &c.). 

h  iin.^ipav  tJji'  6pyi]i' :  most  exactly,  *  the  infiicter  of  the  anger  ' 
(Va.).  The  reference  is  to  the  Last  Judgement:  see  on  L  18, 
zii.  19. 

Bnrton  however  makes  i  iwupiprnv  strictly  eqaivalent  to  a  relatiTe  clanse, 
and  like  a  relative  clause  suggest  a  reason  ('Who  visiteth'-'' because  He 
visiteth')  M.  and  T.  §  428. 

wxth.  oM^pvntw  X^Y**  •  &  ioxxR.  of  phrase  which  is  also  charac- 
teristic of  this  group  of  Epistles,  where  the  eager  argumentation  of 
the  Apostle  leads  him  to  press  the  analogy  between  human  and 
divine  things  in  a  way  that  he  feels  calls  for  apology.  The  exact 
phrase  recurs  only  in  Gal.  iii.  15 ;  cut  comp.  also  i  Cor.  ix.  8 
/i^  Kara  ivQpamov  ravra  \dkSt :  a  Cor.  xi.  17  o  XaX««,  ov  xora  Kvptov 
XaX«. 

6.  Ivci  trws  Kpirfi :  St.  Paul  and  his  readers  alike  held  as  axio- 
matic the  belief  that  God  would  judge  the  world.  But  the  objection 
just  urged  was  inconsistent  with  that  belief,  and  therefore  must 
fall  to  the  ground. 

Iirc( :  '  since,  if  that  were  so,  if  the  inflicting  of  punishment  necessarily 
implied  injustice.'  'Kirtf  gets  the  meaning  '  if  so,* '  if  not '  ('  or  else '),  from 
the  context,  the  clause  to  which  it  points  being  supposed  to  be  repeated : 
here  Ivti  sc  el  SAmw  cffroi  4  Im^t/MVK  r^  ^/>Y<^  (cf.  Buttmaon,  Gr.  ^  N.  T. 
C*-  P-  359)- 

rdr  K<Sa)iOK :  all  mankind. 

<l  8c  M  A  minute,  pauc.,  Vulg.  (»d.  Boh.,  Jo.-Damasc.,  Tisch.  WH.  test. 
RV.  text. ;  cl  7dp  B  D  E  G  K  L  P  &c.,  Vulg.  Syrr.,  Orig.-lat.  Chrys.  «/.,  WH. 
utarg.  RV.  marg.    The  second  reading  may  be  in  its  origin  Western. 

7.  The  position  laid  down  in  ver.  5  is  now  discussed  from  the  side 
of  man,  as  it  had  just  been  discussed  from  the  side  of  God. 

dWjGcia:  the  truthfulness  of  God  in  keeping  His  promises; 
y^tvtrixa,  the  falsehood  of  man  in  denying  their  fulfilment  (as 
in  ver.  4), 

Mv<i:   '1  too,'  as  weU  as  others,  though  my  &lsehood  thus 


74  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [lU.  7,  t. 

redounds  to  God's  glory.  St  Paul  uses  the  first  person  from 
motives  of  delicacy,  just  as  in  i  Cor.  iv.  6  he  '  transfers  by  a  fiction  * 
(Dr.  Field's  elegant  rendering  of  ^ert^x^/idnora)  to  himself  and  his 
friend  Apollos  what  really  applied  to  his  opponents. 

8.  There  are  two  trains  of  thought  in  the  Apostle's  mind :  (i) 
the  excuse  which  he  supposes  to  be  put  forward  by  the  unbeliever 
that  evil  may  be  done  for  the  sake  of  good ;  (ii)  the  accusation 
brought  as  a  matter  of  fact  against  himself  of  saying  that  evil 
might  be  done  for  the  sake  of  good.  The  single  clause  noifiavfuv 
TO  KQKh  Iva  tXdji  TO  ayadd  is  made  to  do  duty  for  both  these  trains  of 
thought,  in  the  one  case  connected  in  idea  and  construction  with 
W  . .  .  fif],  in  the  other  with  Xtyovaw  on.  This  could  be  brought 
out  more  clearly  by  modern  devices  of  punctuation  :  n  m  xdyo)  ur 

ifiapTwXSs,  Kp'ivofiai ;    Koi  [rt  J  nr\ — Ka6a>t  ^\a(T(fir}fiovn(da,  Koi  Kaddts  (f>a(Ti 

Ttvts  tjfuis  Xryed*  ot* — noirjamfuy  k.t.X.  There  is  a  very  similar  con- 
struction in  w.  35,  26,  where  the  argument  works  up  twice  over  to 
the  same  words,  tls  [rrpos]  rfjv  (vbti^tv  t^j  diKaioavvtji  avToii,  and  the 
words  which  follow  the  second  time  are  meant  to  complete  both 
clauses,  the  first  as  well  as  the  second.  It  is  somewhat  similar 
when  in  ch.  ii.  ver.  16  at  once  carries  on  and  completes  w.  15 
and  13. 

St.  Paul  was  accused  (no  doubt  by  actual  opponents)  of  Anti- 
nomianism.  What  he  said  was,  '  The  state  of  righteousness  is  not 
to  be  attained  through  legal  works ;  it  is  the  gift  of  God.'  He 
was  represented  as  saying  '  therefore  it  does  not  matter  what  a  man 
does ' — an  inference  which  he  repudiates  indignantly,  not  only 
here  but  in  vi.  i  flf.,  15  ff. 

WK  TO  Kpi/io  K.T.X.  This  points  back  to  n'  tn  Kdya>  Kplvofiai ;  the 
plea  which  such  persons  put  in  will  avail  them  nothing ;  the  judge- 
ment (of  God)  which  will  fall  upon  them  is  just.  St.  Paul  does 
not  argue  the  point,  or  say  anything  further  about  the  calumny 
directed  against  himself;  he  contents  himself  with  brushing  away 
an  excuse  which  is  obviously  onreaL 


UinVEBSAIi   FAHiimB   TO   ATTATW   TO 
RIOHTEOUSia^EaS. 

III.  9-20.  If  the  case  of  us  Jews  is  so  bad,  are  the 
Gentiles  any  better  ?  No.  Tlie  same  accusation  covers  both. 
The  Scrip  tin  es  speak  of  the  universality  of  human  guilt, 
which  is  laid  down  in  Ps.  xiv  and  graphically  described  in 
Pss.  V,  cxl,  X,  in  Is.  lix,  and  again  in  Ps.  xxxvi.     And  if 


ni.  0-20.]  UNIVERSAL  FAILURE  75 

the  yew  is  equally  guilty  with  the  Gentile,  still  less  can  he 
escape  punishment ;  for  the  Law  which  threatens  him  with 
punishment  is  his  own.  So  then  the  whole  system  of  Law 
and  works  done  in  fulfilment  of  Law,  lias  proved  a  failure. 
Law  can  reveal  sin,  but  not  remove  it. 

•To  return  from  this  digression.  What  inference  are  we  to 
draw  ?  Are  the  tables  completely  turned  ?  Are  we  Jews  not  only 
equalled  but  surpassed  (Trpoexo/*? (9a  passive)  by  the  Gentiles  ?  Not  at 
alL  There  is  really  nothing  to  choose  between  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
The  indictment  which  we  have  just  brought  against  both  (in  i.  1 8- 
3a,  ii.  17-39)  proves  that  they  are  equally  under  the  dominion 
of  sin.  "The  testimony  of  Scripture  is  to  the  same  effect.  Thus 
in  Ps.  xiv  [here  with  some  abridgment  and  variation],  the  Psalmist 
complains  that  he  cannot  find  a  single  righteous  man,  "that  there  is 
none  to  show  any  intelligence  of  moral  and  religious  truth,  none  to 
show  any  desire  for  the  knowledge  of  God.  "They  have  all  (he 
says)  turned  aside  from  the  straight  path.  They  are  like  milk 
that  has  turned  sour  and  bad.  There  is  not  so  much  as  a  single 
right-doer  among  them.  "This  picture  of  universal  wickedness 
may  be  completed  from  such  details  as  those  which  are  applied 
to  the  wicked  in  Ps.  v.  9  [exactly  quoted].  Just  as  a  grave  stands 
yawning  to  receive  the  corpse  that  will  soon  fill  it  with  corruption, 
so  the  throat  of  the  wicked  is  only  opened  to  vent  forth  depraved 
and  lying  speech.  Their  tongue  is  practised  in  fraud.  Or  in 
Ps.  cxl.  3  [also  exactly  quoted]  :  the  poison-bag  of  the  asp  lies 
under  their  smooth  and  flattering  lips.  "  So,  as  it  is  described  in 
Ps.  X.  7,  throat,  tongue,  and  lips  are  full  of  nothing  but  cursing 
and  venom.  **  Then  of  Israel  it  is  said  [with  abridgment  from  LXX 
of  Is.  lix.  7,  8]  :  They  run  with  eager  speed  to  commit  murde' 
'•  Their  course  is  marked  by  ruin  and  misery.  *^  With  smiling 
paths  of  peace  they  have  made  no  acquaintance.  "  To  sum  up  the 
character  of  the  ungodly  in  a  word  [from  Ps.  xxxvi  (xxxv).  i  LXX] : 
The  fear  of  God  supplies  no  standard  for  their  actions. 

"Thus  all  the  world  has  sinned.  And  not  even  the  Jew  can 
claim  exemption  from  tne  consequences  of  his  sin.  For  when  the 
Law  of  Moses  denounces  those  consequences  it  speaks  especially 
to  the  people  to  whom  it  was  given.    By  which  it  was  designed 


76  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [III.  9 

that  the  Jew  too  might  have  his  mouth  stopped  from  all  excuse 
and  that  all  mankind  might  be  held  accountable  to  God. 

**  This  is  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  argument.  By  works  ol 
Law  (i.  e.  by  an  attempted  fulfilment  of  Law)  no  mortal  may  hope 
to  be  declared  righteous  in  God's  sight.  For  the  only  eflfect  of 
Law  is  to  open  men's  eyes  to  their  own  sinfulness,  not  to  enable 
them  to  do  better.  That  method,  the  method  of  works,  has 
failed.    A  new  method  must  be  found. 

8.  tC  o8k  ;  '  What  then  [follows]  ? '  Not  with  npotx6n*6a,  because 
that  would  require  in  reply  ovdiv  navrat,  not  oi  ndvrwt. 

Ttpo€x6ii.e9a  is  explained  in  three  ways :  as  intrans.  in  the  same 
sense  as  the  active  npotx^,  as  trans,  with  its  proper  middle  force, 
and  as  passive,  (i)  npotxoH'fda  mid.  =  npoixoptv  {^praecellimus  eot 
Vulg, ;  and  so  the  majority  of  commentators,  ancient  and  modern, 

kpa  irtpKraov  ep^o/ieK  Trapa  tovs  "EWijvas",   Euthym.-Zig.  ?;^o^€v  ri  nXtov 

Koi  tvdoKipovptv  oi  'lovSmot ;  Theoph. '  Do  we  think  ourselves  better?' 
Gif.).  But  no  examples  of  this  use  are  to  be  found,  and  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  why  St.  Paul  should  not  have  written 
npofxoptv,  the  common  form  in  such  contexts,  (ii)  npoexi/itda  trans, 
in  its  more  ordinary  middle  sense,  '  put  forward  as  an  excuse  or 
pretext '  ('  Do  we  excuse  ourselves  ? '  RV.  marg.,  '  Have  we  any 
defence?'  Mey.  Go.).  But  then  the  object  must  be  expressed, 
and  as  we  have  just  seen  W  ovv  cannot  be  combined  with  npoex6ii(6o 
because  of  ov  navras.  (iii)  npotxopeBa  passive,  '  Are  we  excelled  ? ' 
'  Are  we  Jews  worse  off  (than  the  Gentiles)  ? '  a  rare  use,  but  still 
one  which  is  sufficiently  substantiated  (cf.  Field,  Oi.  Norv.  Ill  ad 
he).  Some  of  the  best  scholars  (e.  g.  Lightfoot,  Field)  incline  to 
this  view,  which  has  been  adopted  in  the  text  of  RV.  The  prin- 
cipal objection  to  it  is  from  the  context.  St.  Paul  has  just  asserted 
(ver.  2)  that  the  Jew  has  an  advantage  over  the  Gentile  :  how  then 
does  he  come  to  ask  if  the  Gentile  has  an  advantage  over  the  Jew  ? 
The  answer  would  seem  to  be  that  a  different  kind  of  '  advantage  * 
is  meant.  The  superiority  of  the  Jew  to  the  Gentile  is  historic,  it 
lies  in  the  possession  of  superior  privileges ;  the  practical  equality 
of  Jew  and  Gentile  is  in  regard  to  their  present  moral  condition 
(ch.  ii.  17-29  balanced  against  ch.  i.  18-32).  In  this  latter  respert 
St.  Paul  implies  that  Gentile  and  Jew  might  really  change  places 
(ii.  25-29).  A  few  scholars  (Olsh.  Va.Lid.)  take  npo€x6nt6a  as  pass., 
but  give  it  the  same  sense  as  npof'xoptp,  *  Are  we  (Jews)  preferred 
(to  the  Gentiles)  in  the  sight  of  God  ? ' 

Tpofx6nt9a :  v.  I.  vpo«ar^xo/*<*'  vtpi9c6v  D*  G,  31 ;  Antiocheae  Fathen 
(Chiryi.  [«d.  Field]  Theodt.  Severianns),  also  Orig.-lat.  Ambrstr.  (ioine  MSS. 
bat  not  the  best,  t$Mtmtu  amplius)  :  a  glosa  explaining  vpotx-  in  the  sama 


tU.  0, 10.]  UNIVERSAL  FAILURE  77 

way  M  Vnlg.  and  the  later  Greek  commentators  quoted  above    A  L  read 

od  itdvTus.  Strictly  speaking  oi  should  qualify  navrat,  '  not 
altogether,'  'not  entirely,'  as  in  i  Cor.  v.  lo  ov  Travras  toU  nopvois 
rov  K6(Tfiov  TovTov :  but  in  some  cases,  as  here,  ndvrws  qualifies  ov, 
'  altogether  not/  '  entirely  not,'  i.  e.  *  not  at  all '  {nequaquam  Vulg., 
ovbanas  Theoph.).  Compare  the  similar  idiom  in  ov  ndw ;  and  see 
Win.  Gr.  Ixi.  5. 

irpoQTiao-iifi,c9a :  in  the  section  i.  18— ii.  39. 

4^'  &|iapT(av.  In  Biblical  Greek  bn6  with  dat.  has  given  place  entirely  to 
hv6  with  ace.  Matt.  viii.  9  dv6poiir6s  dni  vird  t^ovaiav  is  a  strong  case.  The 
change  has  already  taken  place  in  LXX ;  e.  g  DeuL  xxxiii.  3  vdyrtt  ol 
ijp/uujub'oi  iwi  rcLt  x*^pdt  <fov,  ical  oZroi  vvi  oi  flat. 

10.  The  long  quotation  which  follows,  made  up  of  a  number  of 
passages  taken  from  different  parts  of  the  O.  T.,  and  with  no 
apparent  break  between  them,  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  the 
Rabbinical  practice.  '  A  favourite  method  was  that  which  derived 
its  name  from  the  stringing  together  of  beads  {Charaz),  when  a 
preacher  having  quoted  a  passage  or  section  from  the  Pentateuch, 
strung  on  to  it  another  and  like-sounding,  or  really  similar, 
from  the  Prophets  and  the  Hagiographa '  (Edersheim,  Life  and 
Times,  Sec.  i.  449).  We  may  judge  from  this  instance  that  the 
first  quotation  did  not  always  necessarily  come  from  the  Pentateuch 
— though  no  doubt  there  is  a  marked  tendency  in  Christian  as 
compared  with  Jewish  writers  to  equalize  the  three  divisions  of  the 
O.  T.  Other  examples  of  such  compounded  quotations  are  Rom. 
ix.  25  f. ;  27  f.;  xi.  26  f. ;  34  f. ;  xii.  19  f. ;  2  Cor.  vi.  16.  Here  the 
passages  are  from  Pss.  xiv  [xiiij.  1-3  {=Ps.  liii.  1-3  [Hi.  2-4]), 
ver.  I  free,  ver.  2  abridged,  ver.  3  exact;  v.  9  [10]  exact;  cxl.  3 
[cxxxix.  4]  exact :  x.  7  [ix.  28]  free ;  Is.  lix.  7,  8  abridged ;  Ps. 
xxxvi  [xxxv],  I.  The  degree  of  relevance  of  each  of  these 
passages  to  the  argument  is  indicated  by  the  paraphrase  :  see  also 
the  additional  note  at  the  end  of  ch.  x. 

As  •  whole  this  conglomerate  of  quotations  has  had  a  cnrious  history. 
The  quotations  in  N.T.  frequently  react  upon  the  text  of  O.T.,  and  they  have 
done  so  here:  w.  13-18  got  imported  bodily  into  Ps.  xiv  [xiii  LXX  I  as  an 
appendage  to  ver.  4  in  the  'common'  text  of  the  LXX  (ij  hoivtj,  i.e.  the 
unrevised  text  current  in  the  time  of  Origen).  They  are  still  found  in  Codd. 
K*  B  R  U  and  many  cursive  MSS.  of  LXX  (om,  N'='»A),  though  the  Greek 
commentators  on  the  Psalms  do  not  recognize  them.  From  interpolated 
MSS.  such  as  these  they  found  their  way  into  Lat.-Vet.,  and  so  itito 
Jerome's  first  edition  of  the  Psalter  (the  'Roman'),  also  into  his  second 
edition  (the  'Gallican,'  based  upon  Origan's  Hexapla),  though  marked  with 
an  obelus  after  the  example  of  Origen.  The  obelus  dropped  out,  and  they 
are  commonly  printed  in  the  Vulgate  text  of  the  Psalms,  which  is  practically 
the  Gallican.  From  the  Vulgate  they  travelled  into  Coverdale's  Bible 
^.D.  1535) ;   from  theocc  into  Matthew's  (Rogers')  Bible,  which  in  th« 


78  EPISTLE  TO  TH£   ROMANS  [III.  9-12. 

Pgalter  reprodncet  Coverdale  (A.D.  1537),  and  alto  into  the  'Great  Bible' 

(first  issued  by  Cromwell  in  1539,  «ind  afterwards  with  a  preface  by  Cranmer, 
whence  it  also  bears  the  name  of  Cranmer's  Bible,  in  1540^.  The  Psalter  of 
the  Great  Bible  was  incorporated  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  in  which 
it  was  retained  at  being  familiar  and  smoother  to  sing,  even  in  the  later 
revision  which  tubstituted  elsewhere  the  Authorized  Version  of  1611.  The 
editing  of  the  Great   Bible  was  due  to  Coverdale,  who  put  an  ♦  to  the 

Eassaget  found  in  the  Vulgate  but  wanting  in  the  Hebrew.  These  marks 
owever  had  the  same  fate  which  befell  the  obeli  of  Jerome.  They  were 
not  repeated  in  the  Prayer- Book ;  so  that  English  Churchmen  still  read  the 
interpolated  verses  in  Ps.  xir  with  nothing  to  distinguish  them  from  the  rest 
of  the  text.  Jerome  himself  was  well  aware  that  these  verses  were  no  part 
of  the  Psalm.  In  his  commentary  on  Isaiah,  lib.  xvi,  he  notes  that  St.  Paul 
quoted  Is.  lix.  7,  8  in  Ep.  to  Rom.,  and  he  adds,  quod  multi  ignorantes,  dt 
Urtio  decimo psalmo  tumptum putant,  qui  versus  {arixoC^  in  edition*  Vulgata 
[i.  e.  the  Koivi\  of  the  LXX]  additi  sunt  $t  in  Htbraico  non  habentur  (Hieron- 
0pp.  ed.  Migne,  iv.  601  ;  comp.  the  preface  to  the  same  book,  ibid.  col.  568  f. ; 
also  the  newly  discovered  C0mm*Htarieli  in  Ptalmos,  ed.  Morin,  1 895,  p.  34  f.). 

10.  Some  have  thought  that  this  verse  was  not  part  of  the 
quotation,  but  a  summary  by  St.  Paul  of  what  follows.  It  does 
indeed  present  some  variants  from  the  original,  itVatoc  for  iroicor 
\(>riar6Tr\Ta  and  oi8*  tjp  for  ovk  tariv  ciwc  ip6t.  In  the  LXX  this  clause 
is  a  kind  of  refrain  which  is  repeated  exactly  in  ver.  3.  St.  Paul 
there  keeps  to  his  text ;  but  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  in  the 
opening  words  he  should  choose  a  simpler  form  of  phrase  which 
more  directly  suggests  the  connexion  with  his  main  argument 
The  BiKaioi '  shall  live  by  faith ' ;  but  till  the  coming  of  Christianity 
there  was  no  true  SiVaior  and  no  true  faith.  The  verse  runs  too 
much  upon  the  same  lines  as  the  Psalm  to  be  other  than  a 
quotation,  though  it  is  handled  in  the  free  and  bold  manner  which 
is  characteristic  of  St.  Paul. 

11.  oAk  €<m¥  4  vunSiv:  non  est  gut  inielligat  (rather  than  qui 
'intelligit) ;  Anglicfe,  *  there  is  none  to  understand.'  [But  A  B  G, 
and  perhaps  Latt.  Orig.-lat.  Ambrstr.,  WH.  text  read  o-vvtir,  as  also 
(B)C  WH.  text  fVC'jri./,  without  the  art.  after  LXX.  This  would  = 
non  est  intelligens,  non  est  requirens  Deum  (Vulg.)  '  There  is 
no  one  of  understanding,  there  is  no  inquirer  after  God.'J 

h  orwuiv  :  on  the  form  see  Win.  Gr.  §  xiv,  16  (ed.  8  ;  xiv,  3  E.  T.) ;  Hort, 
Intr.  Notts  on  Orthog.  p.  167;  also  for  the  accentuation,  FrL  p.  174! 
Both  forms,  cvukto  and  awlw,  are  found,  and  either  accentuation,  awtSir  or 
cwiwv,  may  be  adopted :  probably  the  latter  is  t^  be  preferred ;  cf.  Ijfit  from 
i<piw  Mk.  L  34,  xi.  16. 

12.  oLfia :  '  one  and  alL' 

^XpeiwdT)aar :   Heb.  =  'to  go  bad,'  'become  soar,'  like  milk; 

comp.  the  dxptlos  FiovXot  of  Matt.  xxv.  30. 
iroiAv  {sin4  artii.)  A  B  G  &c.  WH.  text. 
XpT)<TTiSTT)Ta  =  '  goodness '  in  the  widest  sense,  with  the  idea  ot 
'  utility '  rather  than  specially  of '  kindness,'  as  in  ii.  4. 


m.  ia-19.')  UNIVERSAL  FAILURS  79 

Ittt  hfit :  q>.  the  Latlii  idiom  mf  mtmm  omntt  (Valg.  litenlly  msfu*  md 
mmum).  B  67**,  WH.  mmrg.  omit  the  second  oi*  larir  [ou/r  ianv  iroiSar 
Xpr]OT6Tfira  tois  ivoi].  The  readings  of  B  «nd  its  allies  in  these  verses  are 
open  to  some  snspicion  of  assimilating  to  a  text  of  LXX.  In  ver.  14  £  17 
add  aireiv  (Ibw  ri  aT6fia  airwy)  corresponding  to  afiroS  in  B's  text  of  Ps.  x.  7 
[ix.  38]. 

IS.  rtf^of  .  .  .  ^oXiouvar.  The  LXX  of  Ps.  v.  9  [10]  corre- 
sponds pretty  nearly  to  Heb.  The  last  clause  as  rather  linguam 
suam  blandam  reddunt  {poliunf),  or  perhaps  lingua  sua  blandiuntur 
(Kautzsch,  p.  34) :  '  their  tongue  do  they  make  smooth '  Cheyne ; 
'  smooth  speech  glideth  from  their  tongue '  De  Witt. 

jSoXioOcrav :  Win.  Gr.  \  xiii,  14  (ed.  8 ;  xiii,  if.  E.  T.).  The  termina- 
tion -fav,  extended  from  imperf.  and  snd  aor.  of  verbs  in  -/u  to  verbs  in  -w,  is 
widely  fonnd ;  it  is  common  in  LXX  and  in  Alexandrian  Greek,  bat  by  no 
means  confined  to  it ;  it  is  frequent  in  Boeotian  inscriptions,  and  is  called  by 
one  grammarian  a  '  Boeotian  '  form,  as  by  others  '  Alexandrian.' 

i&s  doiriSwK:  Ps.  cxl.  3  [cxxxix.  4].  The  position  of  the  poison- 
bag  of  the  serpent  is  rightly  described.  The  venom  is  more 
correctly  referred  to  the  bite  (as  in  Num.  zxi.  9;  Prov.  xxiii.  32), 
than  to  the  forked  tongue  (Job  xx.  16):  see  art.  'Serpent'  in 
D.B. 

14.  Ps.  X.  7  somewhat  freely  from  LXX  [ix.  a8]:  ol  apa*  t6 
(TTOfia  avTov  ytfttt  Ka\  iriKpiat  aal  iSkov.  St.  Paul  retains  the  rel.  but 
changes  it  into  the  plural :  <TT6iia  avruv  B  17,  Cypr.,  WH.  marg, 

iriKpia :  Heb.  more  lit.  =i/raudes. 

16-17.  This  quotation  of  Is.  lix.  7,  8  is  freely  abridged  from  the 
LXX ;  and  as  it  is  also  of  some  interest  from  its  bearing  upon 
the  text  of  the  LXX  used  by  St.  Paul,  it  may  be  well  to  give  the 
original  and  the  quotation  side  by  side. 

Rom.  iii.  15-17.  It.  lis.  7, 8. 

^^tr  ol  frddcf  alrStv  (Kxiat  aifM*  ti  M  irtfdcc  avrStv  [crrl  mvtiplv 

Tvrrpinfui  «u  raKaarmpia  i»  rait  rpc^mxri]  raxti«i  inxtai  aifia  [ml  at 
Mots  avrmv,  luu  Mov  tlpiipnit  ••*  iuiKoytirpai  avr&p  buiXoyurfioi  dirh 
fyimatw,  <f>iymp\.      avvrpiftfia  xaX  rdkainatpla 

hf  rait  iHcU  avritp  Koi  6d6y  tlp^piis 
•ic  tlUkurt  [ml  aim  Svn  icpimt  i» 
raw  6dolt  avr&p], 

utpn  dtndntm  Theodotion,  and  probably  also  Aqnila  and  Symmaehnt. 

[From  the  Hexapla  this  reading  has  got  into  several  MSS.  of  LXX.] 

i^()6vtov  (for  avh  <^6vvv)  A  N  :  oilaai  N'  B  Q*,  &c :  iyvaiaay  A  Q*  wiarf, 
(Q  ==  Cod.  Marchalianns,  XII  Holmes)  minttsc.  aliq. 

10.  What  is  the  meaning  of  this  verse  ?  Does  it  mean  that  the 
passages  just  quoted  are  addressed  to  Jews  (o   mS^oc  sx  O.  T.  ; 


So  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [ill.  19,  20 

v6ftov  T^F  noKaiitv  ypa<f>T)v  ovo/jid^tt,  ^t  fiipot  rii  npo(^t)TiKa  EuthyiH.- 
Zig.),  and  therefore  they  are  as  much  guilty  before  God  as  the 
Gentiles  ?  So  most  commentators.  Or  does  it  mean  that  the 
guilt  of  the  Jews  being  now  proved,  as  they  sinned  they  must  also 
expect  punishment,  the  Law  (6  voyios  =  the  Pentateuch)  affirming 
the  connexion  between  sin  and  punishment.  So  Gif.  Both  interpre- 
tations give  a  good  sense.  [For  though  (i)  does  not  strictly  prove 
that  all  men  are  guilty  but  only  that  the  Jews  are  guilty,  this  was 
really  the  main  point  which  needed  proving,  because  the  Jews  were 
apt  to  explain  away  the  passages  which  condemned  them,  and  held 
that — whatever  happened  to  the  Gentiles — they  would  escape.] 
The  question  really  turns  upon  the  meaning  of  6  v6fi.os.  It  is 
urged,  (i)  that  there  is  only  a  single  passage  in  St.  Paul  where 
6  ro/iov  clearly=0.  T.  (i  Cor.  xiv.  21,  a  quotation  of  Is.  xxviii.  11) : 
compare  however  Jo.  x.  34  (=  Ps.  Ixxxii.  6),  xv.  25  (=  Ps. 
XXXV.  19) ;  (ii)  that  in  the  corresponding  clause,  rois  iv  r^  p6fuf 
must  =  the  Law,  in  the  narrower  sense ;  (iii)  that  in  ver.  a  i  the 
Law  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the  Prophets. 

Yet  these  arguments  are  hardly  decisive  :  for  (i)  the  evidence  is 
sufficient  to  show  that  St.  Paul  might  have  used  6  vofios  in  the  wider 
sense ;  for  this  one  instance  is  as  good  as  many  ;  and  (ii)  we  must 
not  suppose  that  St.  Paul  always  rigidly  distinguished  which  sense 
he  was  using ;  the  use  of  the  word  in  one  sense  would  call  up  the 
other  (cf.  Note  on  6  Sdvaros  in  ch.  v.  la). 

Oltr.  also  goes  a  way  of  his  own,  bnt  makes  i  rS/Mt  ^  Law  in  the 
abstract  (covering  at  once  for  the  Gentile  the  law  of  conscience,  and  for  the 
Jew  the  law  of  Moses),  which  is  contrary  to  the  use  of  6  ¥6ftos. 

X^ci  .  .  .  XaXei :  Xtytiv  calls  attention  to  the  substance  of  what 
is  spoken,  \dXeiv  to  the  outward  utterance ;  cf.  esp.  M^Ciellan, 
Gospels,  p.  383  flf. 

^payif :  cf.  dvanoXoyrfrot  I.  80,  ii.  I ;  the  idea  comes  np  at  each 
step  in  the  argument. 

dir6SiKo« :  not  exactly  '  guilty  before  God,'  bat  '  answerable  to 
God.'  vTToSiKo?  takes  gen.  of  the  penalty;  dat.  of  the  person 
injured  to  whom  satisfaction  is  due  (twv  StTrXao-iW  vttoSlkos  eo-Toi 
tQ  l3Xa(f>6£VTi  Plato,  Zegg.  846  B).  So  here:  all  mankind  has 
offended  against  God,  and  owes  Him  satisfaction.  Note  the  use 
of  a  forensic  term. 

20.  Bidri :  '  because,'  not  '  therefore,'  as  AV.  (see  on  L  19). 
Mankind  is  liable  for  penalties  as  against  God,  because  there  is 
nothing  else  to  afford  them  proteciion.  Law  can  open  men's 
eyes  to  sin,  but  cannot  remove  it  Why  this  is  so  is  shown  in 
vii.  7  ff. 

SiKaiwOTJaeTat :  '  shall  be  pronounced  righteous,'  certainly  not 
'  shall  be  made  righteous '  (Lid.) ;  the  whole  context  (u«o  irar  ortVsa 


III.  21-26.J  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  Vl 

<t>payfj,  vn6biK0fy  Mmu»  avrov)  has  reference  to  %  Judicial  trial  and 
verdict. 

jsaaa  adp| '.  man  in  his  weakness  and  frailty  (i  Cor.  L  19 ;  i  Pet 

».  a4)- 
hti^vwrit :  'dear  knowledge';  see  on  I  s8,  3a. 


THE   NEW   SYSTEM. 

m.  21-26.  Here  then  the  new  order  of  things  comes  in. 
In  it  is  offered  a  Righteousness  which  comes  from  God  but 
embraces  man,  by  no  deserts  of  his  but  as  a  free  gift  on  the 
part  of  God.  This  righteousness^  (i)  though  attested  by  the 
Sacred  Books,  is  independent  of  any  legal  system  (ver.  21); 
(ii)  it  is  apprehended  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  is  as  wide  as 
mans  need  (w.  aa,  23) :  (iii)  it  is  made  possible  by  the 
propitiatory  Sacrifice  of  Christ  (w.  24,  25) ;  which  Sacrifice 
at  once  explains  the  lenient  treatment  by  God  of  past  sin 
and  gives  the  most  decisive  expression  to  His  righteousness 
(vv.  a5,  26). 

"  It  is  precisely  such  a  method  which  is  oflFered  in  Christianity. 
We  have  seen  what  is  the  state  of  the  world  without  it  But  now, 
since  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  of  God  has  asserted 
itself  in  visible  concrete  form,  but  so  as  to  furnish  at  the  same 
time  a  means  of  acquiring  righteousness  to  man  —  and  that  in 
complete  independence  of  law,  though  the  Sacred  Books  which 
contain  the  Law  and  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  bear  witness  to 
it.  "  This  new  method  of  acquiring  righteousness  does  not  turn 
upon  works  but  on  faith,  i.  e.  on  ardent  attachment  and  devotion  to 
Jesus  Messiah.  And  it  is  therefore  no  longer  confined  to  any 
particular  people  like  the  Jews,  but  is  thrown  open  without  distinc- 
tion to  all,  on  the  sole  condition  of  believing,  whether  they  be  Jews 
or  Gentiles.  "The  universal  gift  corresponds  to  the  universal  need. 
All  men  alike  have  sinned  ;  and  all  alike  feel  themselves  far  from 
the  bright  effulgence  of  God's  presence.  "Yet  estranged  as  they 
are  God  accepts  them  as  righteous  for  no  merit  or  service  of  theirs, 
by  an  act  of  His  own  free  favour,  the  change  in  their  relation  to 
Him  being  due  to  the  Great  Deliverance  wrought  at  the  price  of  the 
Death  of  Christ  Jesus.    "When  the  Messiah  suffered  upon  the 


8l  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [ill.  22. 

Cross  it  was  God  Who  set  Him  there  as  a  public  spectacle,  to 

be  viewed  as  a  Mosaic  sacrifice  might  be  viewed  by  the  crowds  as- 
sembled in  the  courts  of  the  Temple.  The  shedding  of  His  Blood 
was  in  fact  a  sacrifice  which  had  the  effect  of  making  propitiation 
or  atonement  for  sin,  an  effect  which  man  must  appropriate  through 
faith.  The  object  of  the  whole  being  by  this  public  and  decisive 
act  to  vindicate  the  righteousness  of  God.  In  previous  ages  the 
sins  of  mankind  had  been  passed  over  without  adequate  punishment 
or  atonement :  "  but  this  long  forbearance  on  the  part  of  God  had  in 
view  throughout  that  signal  exhibition  of  His  Righteousness  which 
He  purposed  to  enact  when  the  hour  should  come  as  now  it  has 
come,  so  as  to  reveal  Himself  in  His  double  character  as  at  once 
righteous  Himself  and  pronouncing  righteous,  or  accepting  as 
righteous,  the  loyal  follower  of  Jesus. 

21.  ruri  8^  :  '  now,'  under  the  Christian  dispensation.  Mey.  De 
W.  Oltr.  Go.  and  others  contend  for  the  rendering  '  as  it  is,'  on  the 
ground  that  the  opposition  is  between  two  states,  the  state  under 
Law  and  the  state  without  Law.  But  here  the  two  states  or 
relations  correspond  to  two  periods  succeeding  each  other  in  order 
of  time ;  so  that  wvi  may  well  have  its  first  and  most  obvious 
meaning,  which  is  confirmed  by  the  parallel  passages,  Rom.  xvL 
25,  a6  fivmjpiov  .  .  .  <pvLVtpti6ivTos  .  .  ,  vip,  £ph.  ii.  12,  13  1^1^ 
dt  .  .  .  fyevi]67)Tt  iyyvs,  Col.  L  26,  27  fivoTTjpiov  to  anoKiKpvfifUvop  .  .  . 
rwi/  ii  ((fiai/tpoifii,  2  Tim.  L  9,  lO  X'''""  "'^H'  ^odt'iaav  ,  .  .  irpo  XP^**^' 
alwiwp  (f)avtpu)6(l<Tav  8«   viv,   Heb.   ix.    26   i^vi   6(  ina^  «Vi   <rwTt}ituf 

Tuv  ala>vvp  .  .  .  irf<f>av(paTai.  It  may  be  observed  (i)  that  the  N.  T. 
writers  constantly  oppose  the  pre-Christian  and  the  Christian 
dispensations  to  each  other  as  periods  (comp.  in  addition  to  the 
passages  already  enumerated  Acts  xvii.  30;  Gal.  iii.  23,  25, 
iv.  3,  4 ;  Heb.  i.  i) ;  and  (ii)  that  (^awpoOo-^at  is  constantly  used 
with  expressions  denoting  time  (add  to  passages  above  Tit.  i.  3 
mipols  Idioit,  I  Pet.  i.  20  cfr'  ivxarov  Tii>  xp^imp).  The  leading 
English  commentators  take  this  view. 

An  allusion  of  Tertullian's  makes  it  probable  that  Marcion  retained  this 
rerse  ;  evidence  fails  as  to  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  and  it  is  probable  that  he 
cut  out  the  whole  of  ch.  iv,  along  with  most  other  references  to  the  history 
of  Abraham  (Tert.  on  Gal.  iv.  21-26,  AJv.  Marc.  v.  4). 

Xupis  rtffiov:  'apart  from  law,'  *  indeptndently  of  it,'  not  at 
a  subordinate  system  growing  out  of  Law,  but  as  an  alternative 
for  Law  and  destined  ultimately  to  supersede  it  (Rom.  x.  4). 

SiKaioaun]  dcoS :  see  on  ch.  i.  17.  St.  Paul  goes  on  to  define 
his  meaning.     The  righteousness  which  he  has  in  view  is»  esser 


THE  NEW  SYSTEM  83 

tially  the  righteousness  of  God  ;  though  the  aspect  in  which  it  is 
regarded  is  as  a  condition  bestowed  upon  man,  that  condition  is 
the  direct  outcome  of  the  Divine  attribute  of  righteousness,  work- 
ing its  way  to  larger  reahzation  amongst  men.  One  step  in  this 
reahzation,  the  first  great  objective  step,  is  the  Sacrificial  Death  of 
Christ  for  sin  (ver.  25);  the  next  step  is  the  subjective  appre- 
hension of  what  is  thus  done  for  him  by  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
believer  (ver.  22).  Under  the  old  system  the  only  way  laid  down 
for  man  to  attain  to  righteousness  was  by  the  strict  performance 
of  the  Mosaic  Law  ;  now  that  heavy  obligation  is  removed  and  a 
shorter  but  at  the  same  time  more  effective  method  is  substituted, 
the  method  of  attachment  to  a  Divine  Person. 

ire({>ai'epuTat.  Contrast  the  completed  <pav^pt»(ris  in  Christ  and 
the  continued  airoKaXvylrn  in  the  Gospel  (ch.  i.  16) :  the  verb 
(t)av(povadai  is  regularly  used  for  the  Incarnation  with  its  accompani- 
ments and  sequents  as  outstanding  facts  of  history  prepared  in  the 
secret  counsels  of  God  and  at  the  fitting  moment  '  manifested '  to 
the  sight  of  men;  so,  of  the  whole  process  of  the  Incarnation, 
I  Tim.  iii.  16;  2  Tim.  I  10;  i  Pet.  i.  ao;  i  Jo.  iii.  5,  8:  of  the 
Atonement,  Heb.  ix.  a6 :  of  the  risen  Christ,  Mark  xvi.  la,  14 ; 
John  xxi.  14 :  of  the  future  coming  to  Judgement,  i  Pet.  v.  4  ; 
I  Jo.  ii.  a 8.  The  nearest  parallels  to  this  verse  which  speaks  of 
the  manifestation  of  Divine  '  righteousness '  are  a  Tim.  i.  10,  which 
speaks  of  a  like  manifestation  of  Divine  'grace,'  and  i  Jo.  i.  a, 
which  describes  the  Incarnation  as  the  appearing  on  earth  of  the 
principle  of '  life.' 

^apTupovfiiyy]  k.  r.  X. :  another  instance  of  the  care  with  which 
St.  Paul  insists  that  the  new  order  of  things  is  in  no  way  contrary 
to  the  old,  but  rather  a  development  which  was  duly  foreseen  and 
provided  for :  cf.  Rom.  L  a,  iii.  31,  the  whole  of  ch.  iv,  ix.  a6-33 ; 
X.  i6-ai ;  xi.  i-io,  26-39;  xv.  8-ia ;  xvi.  26  &c. 

22.  8^  turns  to  the  particular  aspect  of  the  Divine  righteousness 
which  the  Apostle  here  wishes  to  bring  out ;  it  is  righteousness 
apprehended  by  faith  in  Christ  and  embracing  the  body  of  believers. 
The  particle  thus  introduces  a  nearer  definition,  but  in  itself  only 
marks  the  transition  in  thought  which  here  (aa  in  ch.  ix.  30 ;  i  Cor. 
li.  6 ;  Gal.  it  a ;  Phil.  ii.  8)  happens  to  be  from  the  general  to  the 
particular. 

-irioTcws  'lijffoS  Xpi<rro8 :  gen.  of  object,  *  faith  in  Jesus  Christ' 
This  is  the  hitherto  almost  universally  accepted  view,  which  has 
however  been  recently  challenged  in  a  very  carefully  worked  out 
argument  by  Prof.  Haussleiter  of  Greifswald  (Der  Glaube  Jesu 
ChrisHu.  der  christliche  Glaube,  Leipzig,  1891). 

Dr.  Haussleiter  contends  that  the  gen.  is  subjective  not  objectiTe,  tkat  like 
the  'fidth  of  Abraham'  in  ch.  iv.  16,  it  denotes  the  faith  (in  God),  wh^ch 
Christ  Himself  maintained  even  tbroogfa  the  ordeal  of  the  Cmcifijcion,  that 


84  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS         [III.  22,  2a 

this  &ith  is  here  pot  forward  as  the  central  feature  of  the  Atonement,  and 
that  it  is  to  be  grasped  or  appropriated  by  the  Christian  in  a  similar  manner 
to  that  in  which  he  reproduces  the  faith  of  Abraham.  If  this  view  held 
good,  a  number  of  other  passages  (notably  i.  17)  would  be  affected  by  it 
But,  although  ably  carried  out,  the  interpretation  of  some  of  these  passages 
seavus  to  us  forced ;  the  theory  brings  together  things,  like  the  maTis  Irjaov 
Xp.fjTov  here  with  the  mans  Qeov  in  iii.  3,  which  are  really  disparate;  and 
h  h..s  so  far,  we  believe,  met  with  no  acceptance. 

'IrjaoO  XpiaToO.  B,  and  apparently  Marcion  as  quoted  by  Tertullian, 
drop  'IrjffoC  (so  too  \VH.  marg.    ;  A  reads  \v  XpiaTw  'Irjoov. 

Kal  cm  ■n&vTo.'i  om.  N*  A  B  C,  47.  67**,  Boh.  Aeth.  Arm.,  Clem.-Alex. 
Orig.  Did.  Cyr.-Alex.  Aug. :  ins.  D  E  F  G  K  L  &c.  tni  iravras  alone  is 
found  in  Jo.  Damasc.  Vulg.  codd.,  so  that  *Ii  Ttavras  koX  «iri  -nfivras  would 
seem  to  be  a  conflation,  or  combination  of  two  readings  originally  alterna- 
tives. If  it  were  the  true  reading  kU  would  expres*  'destination  for*  all 
believers,  lui  'extension  to'  them. 

23.  ofi  ydp  ^(TTi  8iaoToXi^.  The  Apostle  is  reminded  of  one  of 
his  main  positions.  The  Jew  has  (in  this  respect)  no  real  advantage 
over  the  Gentile ;  both  ahke  need  a  righteousness  which  is  not  their 
own ;  and  to  both  it  is  offered  on  the  same  terms. 

TjjjiapTOK.  In  English  we  may  translate  this  'have  sinned'  in 
accordance  with  the  idiom  of  the  language,  which  prefers  to  use 
the  perfect  where  a  past  fact  or  series  of  facts  is  not  separated  by 
a  clear  interval  from  the  present :  see  note  on  ii.  12. 

fioTcpoOi'Tai :  see  Monro,  Homeric  Grammar^  §  8  {3);  mid.  voice  ^ 
^feel  want.'  Gif  well  compares  Matt.  xix.  20  rt  ?rt  ioTcp© ; 
(objective,  '  What,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is  wanting  to  me  ? ')  with 
Luke  XV.  14  Kal  avToi  ^p^iiTo  vartptladai  (subjective,  the  Prodigal 
begins  to/eel  his  destitution). 

Ti)s  86|t(]s.  There  are  two  wholly  distinct  uses  of  this  word : 
(i)  = 'opinion'  (a  use  not  found  in  N.  T.)  and  thence  in 
particular  '  favourable  opinion,'  '  reputation '  (Rom.  ii.  7,  10 ; 
John  xii.  43  &c.);  (2)  by  a  use  which  came  in  with  the 
LXX  as  translation  of  Heb.  ^iSS  =  (i)  '  visible  brightness  or 
splendour'  (Acts  xxii.  11  ;  I  Cor.  xv.  40  ff.);  and  hence 
(ii)  the  brightness  which  radiates  from  the  presence  of  God, 
the  visible  glory  conceived  as  resting  on  Mount  Sinai  (Ex. 
xxiv.  16),  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  (Ex.  xvi.  10),  in  the  tabernacle 
(Ex.  xl.  34)  or  temple  (1  Kings  viii.  11;  a  Chron.  v.  14),  and 
specially  between  the  cherubim  on  the  lid  of  the  ark  (Ps.  Ixxx.  I ; 
Ex.  XXV.  22;  Rom.  ix.  4  &c.);  (iii)  this  visible  splendour 
symbolized  the  Divine  perfections,  'the  majesty  or  goodness  of 
God  as  manifested  to  men'  (Lightfpot  on  Col.  i.  11;  comp.  Eph. 
i.  6,  12,  17;  iii.  16);  (iv)  these  perfections  are  in  a  measure 
communicated  to  man  through,  Christ  (esp.  a  Cor.  iv.  6, 
iii.  18).  Both  morally  andC^hj^sically  a  certain  transfiguration 
takes  place  in  the  Christian,  partially  here,  completely  hereafter 
(comp.  e.g.  Rom.  viii.  30  «'Sd^a t€i»  with  Rom.  v.  a  «r'  cXirtdi  tv 


m.  28,  24.J  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  85 

W^p  TOW  6eov,  viiL  18  T^v  ftfWova-av  S6§(n'  diT0Ka\v<p6rjvai,  2  Tim. 
ii.  10  S6^ris  alavlov).  The  Rabbis  held  that  Adam  by  the  Fall  lost 
six  things,  'the  glory,  life  (immortality),  his  stature  (which  was 
above  that  of  his  descendants),  the  fruit  of  the  field,  the  fruits  of 
trees,  and  the  light  (by  which  the  world  was  created,  and  which 
was  withdrawn  from  it  and  reserved  for  the  righteous  in  the  world 
to  come).'  It  is  explained  that '  the  glory '  was  a  reflection  from 
the  Divine  glory  which  before  the  Fall  brightened  Adam's  face 
(Weber,  AUsyn.  Theol.  p.  314).  Clearly  St.  Paul  conceives  of  this 
glory  as  in  process  of  being  recovered :  the  physical  sense  is  also 
enriched  by  its  extension  to  attributes  that  are  moral  and 
gpirituaL 

The  meaning  of  th^a  in  thii  connexion  is  well  illustrated  by  4  Ezr.  yii.  4a 
[ed.  Bensly  »»  vL  14  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  p.  607],  where  the  state  of  the  blessed 
is  described  as  neqtu  meridiem,  neque  noctem,  neque  ante  lucem  [perh.  for 
anteluctum;  vid.  Bensly  ad  loc.\  neque  nitorem,  neque  claritatem,  neque 
lucem,  nisi  tolummodo  splendorem  claritatis  Altissimi  [perh.  =  a^av-^aa ^.^a 
Sd^r/i  'T>f/iffTov].  In  quoting  this  passage  Ambrose  has  sola  Dei  fulgebit 
tlaritas ;  Dominus  enim  erit  lux  omnium  (cf.  Rev.  xxi.  24).  The  blessed 
themselves  shine  with  a  brightness  which  is  reflected  from  the  face  of  God  : 
ibid.  VY.  97,  98  [Bensly  «■  71,  72  O.  F.  Fritzsche]  quomodo  incipiet  {n^Wfi) 
vultus  eorum  fulgert  sicut  sol,  et  quomodo  incipient  stellarum  adsimilari 
lumini  .  .  .festinant  enim  videre  vultum  \eius\  cui  serviunt  viventes  et 
m  quo  incipient  gloriosi  mercedem  recipere  (cf.  Matt.  xiii.  43). 

24.  Siitaioufiei'oi.  The  construction  and  connexion  of  this  word 
are  difl&cult,  and  perhaps  not  to  be  determined  with  certainly. 
(i)  Many  leading  scholars  (De  W.  Mey.  Lips.  Lid.  Win.  Gr.  §  xlv. 
6  b)  make  hLKaiov^fvoi  mark  a  detail  in,  or  assign  a  proof  of,  the 
condition  described  by  vo-rfpoOvrat.  In  this  case  there  would  be 
a  slight  stress  on  hitptav.  men  are  far  from  God's  glory,  because  the 
state  of  righteousness  has  to  be  given  them ;  they  do  nothing  for 
it.  But  this  is  rather  far-fetched.  No  such  proof  or  further 
description  of  iorfpoCiTat  is  needed.  It  had  already  been  proved 
by  the  actual  condition  of  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles ;  and  to  prove 
it  by  the  gratuitousness  of  the  justification  would  be  an  inversion 
of  the  logical  order,    (ii)  vo-rfpoOfTai  8iKaiovfjLevoi  is  taken  as  =  va-rf- 

povvTM   Koi   diKMovvTM   (Frl.)   Or  :=  v(TTfpovfievoi   8iKaiovvTai    (Tholuck). 

But  this  is  dubious  Greek,  (iii)  SiKaiovnevoi  is  not  taken  with  what 
precedes,  but  is  made  to  begin  a  new  clause.  In  that  case  there  is 
an  anacoluthon,  and  we  must  supply  some  such  phrase  as  nw 
Kovxoifieda ;  (Oltr.).  But  that  would  be  harsh,  and  a  connecting 
particle  seems  wanted,  (iv)  Easier  and  more  natural  than  any  of 
these  expedients  seems  to  be,  with  Va.  and  Ewald,  to  make  ov  yap 
.  .  .  iartpoiivTai  practically  a  parenthesis,  and  to  take  the  nom. 
^iKaioCfievoi  '  as  suggested  by  travrts  in  ver.  23,  but  in  sense  referring 
rather  to  rom  maTiuovrai  in  ver.  22.'  No  doubt  such  a  construcaon 
would  be  irregular,  but  it  may  be  questioned  whether  it  is  too 


M  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  |II1.  24. 

irregular  for  St.  Paul.  The  Apostle  frequently  gives  a  new  turn  to 
a  sentence  under  the  influence  of  some  expression  which  is  really 
subordinate  to  the  main  idea.     Perhaps  as  near  a  parallel  as  any 

«'Ould   be    a    Cor.  viii.    l8,   19   (rvvtnifxyiranfv   df  t6v  a8f\<f>6i>       ,    .   ol 

5  tlnaivos  iv  Ty  rvayy«Xt«   .    .    .   oi  itAvov  it,  dXXa  Koi  xftpoTovrfSfiT  (aS  if 

or  fTrnivt'irai  had  preceded). 

Swpeai'  T^  auTou  x'^'P'Ti.  Each  of  these  phrases  strengthens  the 
other  in  a  very  emphatic  way,  the  position  of  airov  further  laying 
stress  on  the  fact  that  this  manifestation  of  free  favour  on  the  part 
of  God  is  unprompted  by  any  other  external  cause  than  the  one 

which  is  mentioned  (8ia  r^j  diroXvrpmcreoys). 

diroXuTpuCTcws.  It  is  contended,  esp.  by  Oltramare,  (i)  that 
\vTp6a)  and  dirokvTpom  in  classical  Greek  =  not  *  to  pay  a  ransom/ 
but '  to  take  a  ransom,'  '  to  put  to  ransom,'  or  '  release  on  ransom,* 
as  a  conqueror  releases  his  prisoners  (the  only  example  given  of 

dwoXvTpaxTis  is  Plut.  Pomp.  24  iroXt'an'  axxpAKcurviv  aTrokvrpdxTfts,  where 

the  word  has  this  sense  of  '  putting  to  ransom ') ;  (ii)  that  in  LXX 
Xvrpoiadai  is  frequently  used  of  the  Deliverance  from  Egypt,  the 
Exodus,  in  which  there  is  no  question  of  ransom  (so  Ex.  vi.  6, 
XV.  13;  Deut.  vii.  8;  ix.  a6 ;  xiii.  5,  Ac:  cf.  also  anoKvrp&trtt 
Ex.  xxi  8,  of  the  *  release '  of  a  slave  by  her  master).  The  subst. 
dnokvTpoxTis  occurs  Only  in  one  place,  Dan.  iv.  30  [29  or  32],  LXX 

6  xp^^'o^  P°^  "^^  airo\vTpu>(Tt(iii  TjXOt  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  recovery 
from  his  madness.  Hence  it  is  inferred  (cf.  also  Westcott,  He6. 
p.  296,  and  Ritschl,  Rechtfert.  u.  VersOhn.  ii.  220  fF.)  that  here  and 
in  similar  passages  anokvrpasfTK  denotes  *  deliverance '  simply  without 
any  idea  of  'ransom.'  "There  is  no  doubt  that  this  part  of  the 
metaphor  might  be  dropped.  But  in  view  of  the  clear  resolution  of 
the  expression  in  Mark  x.  45  (Matt.  xx.  28)  iovvm  rriv  V^x^"  ovtov 

Xirpov  dvTi  rroXXuv,  and  in  I  Tim.  ii.  6  6  dovs  iavrhv  dvriXvTpov  xmip 

ndvTutVy  and  in  view  also  of  the  many  passages  in  which  Christians 
are  said  to  be  *  bought,'  or  '  bought  with  a  price '  (i  Cor.  vi.  ao, 
vii.  23;  Gal.  iii.  13;  a  Pet.  ii.  i;  Rev.  v.  9:  cf.  Acts  xx.  aS ; 
I  Pet.  i.  18,  19),  we  can  hardly  resist  the  conclusion  that  the  idea 
of  the  Xvrpov  retains  its  full  force,  that  it  is  identical  with  the  tj/x^, 
and  that  both  are  ways  of  describing  the  Death  of  Christ.  The 
emphasis  is  on  the  cost  of  man's  redemption.  We  need  not  press 
the  metaphor  yet  a  step  further  by  asking  (as  the  ancients  did)  to 
whom  the  ransom  or  price  was  paid.  It  was  required  by  that 
ultimate  necessity  which  has  made  the  whole  course  of  things  what 
it  has  been ;  but  this  necessity  is  far  beyond  our  powers  to  grasp 
or  gauge. 

rfjs  <v  Xpio-T^  7i]<roO.  We  owe  to  Hanstleiter  {Dtr  Glamhe  Jtsu  Christi, 
p.  116)  the  interesting  ob«ervation  that  wherever  the  phrase  iv  Xpiar^  01  iv 
Xpiar^  lijaov  occurs  there  is  no  single  instance  of  the  variants  iv  'Irjaov  01 
Iv  'Ii;aov  T^VT^.     This  is  significant,  becanie  in  other  combinations  thf 


III.  24,  26.]  THK  NEW  SYSTEM  87 

Tariants  are  freqaent  It  it  also  what  we  shoold  expect,  btcaase  Ir  Xptorr^ 
and  Iv  Xpurr^  li^cr.  always  relate  to  the  glorified  Christ,  not  to  the  historic 
Jesut. 

26.  irpo^OeTO  may  a:  either  (i) '  whom  God  proposed  to  Himself,' 
'  purposed,'  *  designed '  (Orig.  Pesh.) ;  or  (ii)  '  whom  God  set  forth 
publicly '  {proposuit  Vulg.).  Both  meanings  would  be  in  full  ac- 
cordance with  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  both  elsewhere  and  in  this 
Epistle.  For  (i)  we  may  compare  the  idea  of  the  Divine  npodtant 
in  ch.  ix.  11  (viii.  28);  Eph.  iii.  11  (i.  11);  2  Tim.  i.  9;  also 
I  Pet.  i.  20.  For  (ii)  compare  esp.  Gal.  iii.  i  oU  kut  ocpdaKfxovi 
*lr](rovs  Xp«rrAf  iTpoeypd(f>i]  itTTavpafitvos.  But  when  we  tum  to  the 
immediate  context  we  find  it  so  full  of  terms  denoting  publicity 
(ir«f>artpttTat,  tit  fvSfi$iv,  irpir  Tf)v  eviti^iv)  that  the  latter  sense  seems 
preferable.  The  Death  of  Christ  is  not  only  a  manifestation  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  but  a  visible  manifestation  and  one  to  which 
appeal  can  be  made. 

tXa<m^pior :  usually  subst.  meaning  strictly  '  place  or  vehicle  of 
propitiation,'  but  originally  neut.  of  adj.  iXaomjptor  (tXaori^piov 
midtfia  Ex.  XXV.  16  [17],  where  however  Gif.  takes  the  two  words 
as  substantives  in  apposition).  In  LXX  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  m 
Heb.  ix.  5,  the  word  constantly  stands  for  the  *  lid  of  the  ark,'  or 
*  mercy-seat,'  so  called  from  the  fact  of  its  being  sprinkled  with  the 
blood  of  the  sacrifices  on  the  Day  of  Atonement.  A  number  of 
the  best  authorities  (esp.  Gif.  Va.  Lid.  Ritschl,  Rechtfert.  u.  Versohn. 
ii.  169  flF.  ed.  2)  take  the  word  here  in  this  tense,  arguing  (i)  that 
it  suits  the  emphatic  avrov  in  iv  t^  ovtov  aifian;  (ii)  that  through 
LXX  it  would  be  by  far  the  most  familiar  usage ;  (iii)  that  the 
Greek  commentators  (as  Gif.  has  shown  in  detail)  unanimously  give 
it  this  sense ;  (iv)  that  the  idea  is  specially  appropriate  inasmuch  as 
on  Christ  rests  the  fulness  of  the  Divine  glory,  *  the  true  Shekinah,' 
and  it  is  natural  to  connect  with  His  Death  the  culminating  rite  in 
the  culminating  service  of  Atonement.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  great  harshness,  not  to  say  confusion,  in  making  Christ  at 
once  priest  and  victim  and  place  of  sprinkling.  Origen  it  is  true 
does  not  shrink  from  this ;  he  says  expressly  invenies  igilur  .  .  .  esse 
ipsum  et  propitiatorium  et  pontificem  et  hosiiam  quae  offertur  pro 
populo  {in  Rom.  iii.  8,  p.  213  Lomm.).  But  although  there  is 
a  partial  analogy  for  this  in  Heb.  ix.  11-14,  23-x.  22,  where 
Christ  is  both  priest  and  victim,  it  is  straining  the  image  yet  further. 
to  identify  Him  with  the  tXaor^pwi'.  The  Christian  iKaajjipiov,  or 
'  place  of  sprinkling,'  in  the  literal  sense,  is  rather  the  Cross.  It  is 
also  something  of  a  point  (if  we  are  right  in  giving  the  sense  of 
publicity  to  -npokBtro)  that  the  sprinkling  of  the  mercy-seat  was  just 
the  one  rite  which  was  withdrawn  from  the  sight  of  the  people. 
Another  way  of  taking  tXaonjptov  is  to  supply  with  it  6vpa  on  the 
analogy  of  a*ari\pu>v,  TtXtarfipiop,  xapurri]ptovk     This  too  is  Strongly 


88  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [III   25 

supported  (esp.  by  the  leading  German  commentators,  De  W.  Fri 
Mey.  Lips.).  But  there  seems  to  be  no  clear  instance  of  tXaor^pto* 
used  in  this  sense.  Neither  is  there  satisfactory  proof  that  tXatrr. 
(subst)  =  in  a  general  sense  '  instrument  or  means  of  propitiation.' 
It  appears  therefore  simplest  to  take  it  as  adj.  accus.  masc.  added 
as  predicate  to  ok.  There  is  evidence  that  the  word  was  current  as 
an  adj.  at  this  date  {tXaarripiop  fiv^ixa  Joseph.  AnU.  XVI,  vii.  i  • 
IXacTTTfpiov  Bavdrov  4  Macc.  xvii.  32  *,  and  other  exx.).  The 
objection  that  the  adj.  is  not  applied  properly  to  persons  counts 
for  very  little,  because  of  the  extreme  rarity  of  Uie  sacrifice  of 
a  person.  Here  however  it  is  just  this  personal  element  which  is 
most  important.  It  agrees  with  the  context  that  the  term  chosen 
should  be  rather  one  which  generalizes  the  character  of  propitiatory 
sacrifice  than  one  which  exactly  reproduces  a  particular  feature  of 
such  sacrifice. 

The  Latin  TtrsioiM  do  not  help  u :  they  give  all  three  leaderingi,  ^r»- 
fitialorium,  firopitiatortm,  and  propitiationtm.  Syr.  U  also  ombiguon*. 
The  Coptic  clearly  favours  the  masc.  rendering  adopted  above. 

It  may  be  of  some  interest  to  compare  the  Jewish  teaching  on  the  subject 
of  Atonement.  '  When  a  man  thinks,  I  will  just  go  on  sinning  and  repent 
later,  no  help  it  given  him  from  above  to  mj^e  him  repent.  He  who 
thinks,  I  will  but  just  sin  and  the  Day  of  Atonement  will  bring  me  forgive- 
ness, such  an  one  gets  no  forgiveness  through  the  Day  of  Atonement. 
Offences  of  man  against  God  the  Day  of  Atonement  can  atone ;  offences  of 
man  against  his  fellow-man  the  Day  of  Atonement  cannot  atone  until  be  has 
given  satisfaction  to  his  fellow-man '  ;  and  more  to  the  same  effect  (Mishnah, 
Tract.  Joma,  viii.  9,  ap.  Winter  u.  Wiinsche,  Jiid.  Lit.  p.  98).  We  get 
a  more  advanced  system  of  casuistry  in  Tosephta,  Tract.  Joma,  v  :  '  R.  Ismael 
said,  Atonement  is  of  four  kinds.  He  who  transgresses  a  positive  command 
and  repents  is  at  once  forgiven  according  to  the  Scripture,  "  Return,  ye  back- 
sliding children,  I  vrill  heal  your  backslidings  "  (Jer.  iii.  23  [2  a]).  He  who 
transgresses  a  negative  command  or  prohibition  and  repents  has  the  atone- 
ment held  in  suspense  by  his  repentance,  and  the  Day  of  Atonement  makes 
it  effectual,  according  to  the  Scripture,  "  For  on  this  day  shall  atonement  be 
made  for  yon  "  (Lev.  xvi.  30).  If  a  man  commits  a  sin  for  which  is  decreed 
extermination  or  capital  punishment  and  repents,  his  repentance  and  the 
Day  of  Atonement  together  keep  the  atonement  in  suspense,  and  suffering 
brings  it  home,  according  to  the  Scripture,  "  I  will  visit  their  transgression 
with  the  rod  and  their  iniquity  with  stripes"  (Ps.  Ixxiix.  33  [32]).  But 
when  a  man  profanes  the  Name  of  God  and  repents,  his  repentance  has  not 
the  power  to  keep  atonement  in  suspense,  and  the  Day  of  Atonement  has 
not  the  power  to  atone,  but  repentance  and  the  Day  of  Atonement  atone 
one  third,  sufferings  on  the  remaining  days  of  the  year  atone  one  third,  and 
the  day  of  death  completes  the  atonement  according  to  the  Scripture, 
"  Surely  this  iniquity  shall  not  be  expiated  by  yon  till  you  die  "  (Is.  xxii.  14). 
This  teaches  that  the  day  of  death  completes  the  atonement.  Sin-offering 
and  trespass-offering  and  death  and  the  Day  of  Atonement  all  being  no 
atonement  without  repentance,  because  it  is  written  in  Lev.  xxiii.  21  (?) 
"Only,"  i.e.  when  he  turns  from  his  evil  way  does  he  obtain  atonement, 
otherwise  he  obtains  no  atonement '  {op.  tit.  p.  154). 

*  Some  MSS.  read  here  did  .  . .  «•«  l>  aanjpiov  rov  Aai4rov  oirwr  (O.  F. 
Fritische  met  loc.). 


III.  26.1  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  8q 

9*A  Tj)«  irloTflwt:  &a  wtffTtcn  KC*D*FG  6j**  «/.,  Tisch.  WH.  text. 
The  art.  seems  here  rather  more  correct,  pointing  back  as  it  would  do  to  Sii 
wlarton  *!.  X.  in  ver.  aa  ;  it  is  found  in  B  and  the  mass  of  later  authorities, 
bat  there  is  a  strong  phalanx  on  the  other  tide ;  B  ia  not  infallible  in  sach 
company  (cfl  xi.  6). 

Ir  T^  ouTou  atfia-n :  not  with  nitrrttit  (though  this  would  be 
a  quite  legitimate  combination ;  see  Gif.  ad  loc),  but  with  npofOero 
tkaorTjpiov:  the  shedding  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  is  a  principal 
idea,  not  secondary. 

The  significance  of  the  Sacrificial  Bloodshedding  was  twofold. 
The  blood  was  regarded  by  the  Hebrew  as  essentially  the  seat  of 
life  (Gen.  ix.  4;  Lev.  xvii.  ii ;  Deut.  xii.  23).  Hence  the  death 
of  the  victim  was  not  only  a  death  but  a  setting  free  of  life ;  the 
application  of  the  blood  was  an  application  of  life;  and  the 
offering  of  the  blood  to  God  was  an  offering  of  life.  In  this  lay 
more  especially  the  virtue  of  the  sacrifice  (Westcott,  Ep.Jo.  p.  34  flf.  ; 
Heb,  p.  293  f.). 

For  the  prominence  which  is  given  to  the  Bloodshedding  in 
connexion  with  the  Death  of  Christ  see  the  passages  collected 
below. 

CIS  2>'8€i|i»» :  e?f  denotes  the  final  and  remote  object,  »rpoV  the 
nearer  object.  The  whole  plan  of  redemption  from  its  first 
conception  in  the  Divine  Mind  aimed  at  the  exhibition  of  God's 
Righteousness.  And  the  same  exhibition  of  righteousness  was 
kept  in  view  in  a  subordinate  part  of  that  plan,  viz.  the  forbearance 
which  God  displayed  through  long  ages  towards  sinners.  For  the 
punctuation  and  structure  of  the  sentence  see  below.  For  Iv^ti^w 
see  on  ch.  ii.  15 ;  here  too  the  sense  is  that  of '  proof  by  an  appeal 
to  fact.' 

CIS  cKSei^ir  TTis  8iitoiocnJn(j$  aurou.  In  what  sense  can  the  Death 
of  Christ  be  said  to  demonstrate  the  righteousness  of  God?  It 
demonstrates  it  by  showing  the  impossibility  of  simply  passing  over 
sin.  It  does  so  by  a  great  and  we  may  say  cosmical  act,  the 
nature  of  which  we  are  not  able  wholly  to  understand,  but  which 
at  least  presents  analogies  to  the  rite  of  sarrifice,  and  to  that 
particular  form  of  the  rite  which  had  for  its  object  propitiation. 
The  whole  Sacrificial  system  was  symbolical ;  and  its  wide  diffusion 
showed  that  it  was  a  mode  of  religious  expression  specially 
appropriate  to  that  particular  stage  in  the  world's  development. 
Was  it  to  lapse  entirely  with  Christianity?  The  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  practically  answer,  No.  The  necessity  for  it  still 
existed;  the  great  fact  of  sin  and  guilt  remained ;  there  was  still  the 
same  bar  tc  the  offering  of  acceptable  worship.  To  meet  this  fact 
and  to  remove  this  bar,  there  had  been  enacted  an  Event  which 
possessed  the  significance  of  sacrifice.  And  to  that  event  the  N.  T. 
writers  appealed  as  satisfying  the  conditions  which  the  righteousness 


90  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [III.  25,  26 

of  God  required.     See  the  longer  Note  on  '  The  Death  of  Christ 
considered  as  a  Sacrifice '  below. 

Sid  -riiK  irdpcair:  not  'for  the  remission/  as  AV.,  which  gives 
a  somewhat  unusual  (though,  as  we  shall  see  on  iv.  25,  not 
impossible)  sense  to  8»a,  and  also  a  wrong  sense  to  ndpta-iv,  but 
'because  of  the  pretermission,  or  passing  over,  of  foregone  sins.' 
For  the  difference  between  Trdpta-it  and  a(f>ta-it  see  Trench,  Syn. 
p.  iioff. :  rrdpea-is  =  ' putting  osi'de,'  temporary  suspension  of 
punishment  which  may  at  some  later  date  be  inflicted ;  a<f>t<rts  at 
'  putting  away,'  complete  and  unreserved  forgiveness. 

It  is  possible  that  the  thought  of  this  passage  may  hare  been  suggested  by 
Wisd.  xi.  33  [34]  Hcu  trapop^s  ipapi-Zjuara  dvOpdjirtuy  tit  pfriyoiav.  There 
will  be  found  in  Trench,  op.  cit.  p.  1 1 1,  an  account  of  a  controversy  which 
arose  out  of  this  verse  in  Holland  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  and  beginning 
of  the  serenteenth  centnries. 

d)iapTT|)i(iTwi' :  as  contrasted  with  ApLopria,  apAprnfpM  as  the  single 
act  of  sin,  dpapria  =  the  permanent  principle  of  which  such  an  act 
is  the  expression. 

ir  Tfl  Akox^  :  «V  either  (i)  denotes  motive,  as  Mey.,  Ac.  (Grimm, 
Lex.  s.  V.  if,  5  ^) ;  or  (ii)  it  is  temporal,  *  during  the  forbearance  of 
God.'  Of  these  (i)  is  preferable,  because  the  whole  context  deals 
with  the  scheme  as  it  lay  in  the  Divine  Mind,  and  the  relation  of 
its  several  parts  to  each  other. 

dcoxfj :  see  on  ii.  4,  and  note  that  avoy^  is  related  to  wptnt  as 
xapt{  is  related  to  d(pt<ris. 

26.  irpis  r^v  ivhtiiiv:  to  be  connected  closely  with  the  preceding 
clause :  the  stop  which  separates  this  verse  from  the  last  should  be 
wholly  removed,  and  the  pause  before  Hm  rfiv  ndptaw  somewhat 
lengthened ;  we  should  represent  it  in  English  by  a  dash  or  semi- 
colon. We  may  represent  the  various  pauses  in  the  passage  in  some 
such  way  as  this :  '  Whom  God  set  forth  as  propitiatory — through 
faith — in  His  own  blood — for  a  display  of  His  righteousness ; 
because  of  the  passing-over  of  foregone  sins  in  the  forbearance  of 
God  with  a  view  to  the  display  of  His  righteousness  at  the  present 
moment,  so  that  He  might  be  at  once  righteous  (Himself)  and 
declaring  righteous  him  who  has  for  his  motive  faith  in  Jesus.'  Gif. 
seems  to  be  successful  in  proving  that  this  is  the  true  construction  : 
(i)  otherwise  it  is  diflicult  to  account  for  the  change  of  the  preposi- 
tion from  tls  to  np6s ;  (ii)  the  art.  is  on  this  view  perfectly  accounted 
for,  *  the  same  display '  as  that  just  mentioned  ;  (iii)  riv  trpoytyif 
p6t(ov  &fiapTT]pdT(op  seems  to  be  contrasted  with  tv  r^  vCv  Kcup^ ;  (iv)  the 
construction  thus  most  thoroughly  agrees  with  St.  Paul's  style 
elsewhere :  see  GifTord's  note  and  compare  the  passage  quoted 
Eph.  iii.  3-5,  also  Rom.  iii.  7,  8,  ii.  14-16. 

SixaioK  Ral  SiKaioCio-a.  This  is  the  key-phrase  which  establishes 
the  connexion  between  the  ducoMvinnf  Btov,  and  the  duuuovvmf  ia 


III.  21-26.]  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  9I 

nlartmt.  It  is  not  that '  God  is  righteous  and  yet  declares  righteous 
the  believer  in  Jesus/  but  that  *  He  is  righteous  and  also,  we  might 
almost  say  and  there/ore,  declares  righteous  the  believer.'  The 
words  indicate  no  opposition  between  justice  and  mercy.  Rather 
that  which  seems  to  us  and  which  really  is  an  act  of  mercy  is  the 
direct  outcome  of  the  '  righteousness '  which  is  a  wider  and  more 
adequate  name  than  justice.  It  is  the  essential  righteousness  of 
God  which  impels  Him  to  set  in  motion  that  sequence  of  events  in 
the  sphere  above  and  in  the  sphere  below  which  leads  to  the  free 
forgiveness  of  the  believer  and  starts  him  on  his  way  with  a  clean 
page  to  his  record. 

7hv  Ik  ■aifrttioi :  '  him  whose  ruling  motive  is  faith ' ;  contrast 
oi  (^  tpidfias  ch.  ii.  8  ;  iaoi  c'|  i^jyap  v6fiov  ('  as  many  as  depend  on 
works  of  law')  Gal.  ill.  10. 

Tlfe  Death  of  Christ  considered  as  a  Sacrifice. 

It  is  impossible  to  get  rid  from  this  passage  of  the  double  idea 
(i)  of  a  sacrifice;  (a)  of  a  sacrifice  which  is  propitiatory.  In  any 
case  the  phrase  «V  t^  qvtov  aluari.  carries  with  it  the  idea  of  sacrificial 
bloodshedding.  And  whatever  sense  we  assign  to  iXao-njpio«» — 
whether  we  directly  supply  Qvfia,  or  whether  we  supply  tnldfixa  and 
regard  it  as  equivalent  to  the  mercy-seat,  or  whether  we  take  it  as 
an  adj.  in  agreement  with  ov — the  fundamental  idea  which  underlies 
the  word  must  be  that  of  propitiation.  And  further,  when  we  ask, 
Who  is  propitiated  ?  the  answer  can  only  be  '  God.'  Nor  is  it 
possible  to  separate  this  propitiation  from  the  Death  of  the  Son. 

Quite  apart  from  this  passage  it  is  not  difficult  to  prove  that  these 
two  ideas  of  sacrifice  and  propitiation  lie  at  the  root  of  the  teaching 
not  only  of  St.  Paul  but  of  the  New  Testament  generally.  Before 
considering  their  significance  it  may  be  well  first  to  summarize  this 
evidence  briefly. 

(i)  As  in  the  passage  before  us,  so  elsewhere;  the  stress  which  is 
laid  on  alfxa  is  directly  connected  with  the  idea  of  sacrifice.  We 
have  it  in  St.  Paul,  in  Rom.  v.  9  ;  Eph.  i.  7,  ii.  13 ;  Col.  i.  20  {8ia  tov 

mfiaroe  tov  aravpov).  We  have  it  for  St.  Peter  in  I  Pet.  i.  2  {pavricriinv 
atfiaros)   and     1 9    (rifiito   aifuiTi    i)s    apvov  aptapov    Koi    dvniXov),      Fof 

St  John  we  have  it  in  i  Jo.  i.  7,  and  in  v.  6,  8.  It  also  comes 
out  distinctly  in  several  places  in  the  Apocalypse  (i.  5,  v.  9,  vii.  14, 
xii.  II,  xiii.  8).  It  is  a  leading  idea  very  strongly  represented  in 
Ep.  to  Hebrews  (especially  in  capp.  ix,  x,  xiii).  There  is  also  the 
strongest  reason  to  think  that  this  Apostolic  teaching  was  suggested 
by  words  of  our  Lord  Himself,  who  spoke  of  His  approaching 
death  in  terms  proper  to  a  sacrifice  such  as  that  by  which  the  First 
Covenant  had  been  inaugurated  (comp.  i  Cor.  xi.  25  with  M»i* 
xxvi    28  ;  Mark  xiv.  24  [perhaps  not  Luke  xxii.  20]). 


g%  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IIL  21-26 

Many  of  these  passages  besides  the  mention  of  bloodshedding 
and  the  death  of  the  victim  (Apoc.  v,  6,  ia,xiii.  8  dpviov  €a-(payn(vov: 
cf.  V.  9)  call  attention  to  other  details  in  the  act  of  sacrifice  (e.  g. 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood,  payna-fids  i  Pet.  L  a ;  Heb.  xiL  24 ; 
cf.  Heb.  ix.  13,  19,  31). 

We  observe  also  that  the  Death  of  Christ  is  compared  not  only 
to  one  but  to  several  of  the  leading  forms  of  Levitical  sacrifice :  to 
the  Passover  (John  i.  29,  xix.  36;  i  Cor,  v.  8,  and  the  passages 
which  speak  of  the  '  lamb '  in  i  Pet.  and  Apoc.) ;  to  the  sacrifices 
of  the  Day  of  Atonement  (so  apparently  in  the  passage  from  which 
we  start,  Rom.  iii.  25,  also  in  Heb.  ii.  17;  ix.  12,  14,  15,  and 
perhaps  i  Jo.  ii.  a,  iv.  10;  i  Pet.  ii.  24);  to  the  ratification  of  the 
Covenant  (Matt.  xxvi.  28,  &c. ;  Heb.  ix.  15-22);  to  the  sin-oflFering 
(Rom.  viii.  3;  Heb.  xiii.  11;  i  Pet.  iii.  18,  and  possibly  if  not 
under  the  earlier  head,  i  Jo.  ii.  a,  iv.  10). 

(a)  In  a  number  of  these  passages  as  well  as  in  others,  both 
from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  and  from  other  Apostolic  writings, 
the  Death  of  Christ  is  directly  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  (e.  g.  Matt.  xxvi.  a8 ;  Acts  v.  30  f ,  apparently ;  i  Cor.  xv.  3 ; 
a  Cor.  v.  ai ;  Eph.  i.  7  ;  Col.  i.  14  and  20  ;  Tit.  ii.  14 ;  Heb.  i.  3, 
ix.  28,  X.  12  al.;  i  Pet.  ii.  24,  iii.  18;  i  Jo.  ii.  a,iv.  10;  Apoc.  i.  5). 
The  author  of  Ep.  to  Hebrews  generalizes  from  the  ritual  system 
of  the  Old  Covenant  that  sacrificial  bloodshedding  is  necessary  in 
every  case,  or  nearly  in  every  case,  to  place  the  worshipper  in  a 
condition  of  fitness  to  approach  the  Divine  Presence  (Heb.  ix.  a  a 
Koi  <T\(b6v  iv  aifiari  ndvra  Kadapi^erai  Kara  ritv  vopov,  koi  x®P'* 
alftartKxva-iat  ov  yivtrai  a(f)f(Tis).  The  use  of  the  different  words 
denoting  '  propitiation '  is  all  to  the  same  effect  [i\aa-TT]pioy  Rom. 
iii.  25  ;  iKaafjios  I  Jo.  ii.  a,  iv.  10  ;  tXacrKtadai  Heb.  ii.  17). 

This  strong  convergence  of  Apostolic  writings  of  different  and 
varied  character  seems  to  show  that  the  idea  of  Sacrifice  as  applied 
to  the  Death  of  Christ  cannot  be  put  aside  as  a  merely  passing 
metaphor,  but  is  interwoven  with  the  very  weft  and  warp  of 
primitive  Christian  thinking,  taking  its  start  (if  we  may  trust  our 
traditions)  from  words  of  Christ  Himself.  What  it  all  amounts  to 
is  that  the  religion  of  the  New  Testament,  Hke  the  religion  of  the 
Old,  has  the  idea  of  sacrifice  as  one  of  its  central  conceptions,  not 
however  scattered  over  an  elaborate  ceremonial  system  but  concen- 
trated in  a  single  many-sided  and  far-reaching  act 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  throws  back  a  light  over  the  Old 
Testament  sacrifices — and  indeed  not  only  over  them  but  over  the 
sacrifices  of  ethnic  religion — and  shows  that  they  were  something 
more  than  a  system  of  meaningless  butchery,  that  they  had  a  real 
spiritual  significance,  and  that  they  embodied  deep  principles  of 
religion  in  forms  suited  to  the  apprehension  of  the  age  to  which  they 
were  given  and  capable  of  gradual  refinement  and  purification. 


m.  21-26.J  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  93 

In  this  connexion  it  may  be  worth  while  to  quote  a  striking 
passage  from  a  writer  of  great,  if  intermittent,  insight,  who  approaches 
the  subject  from  a  thoroughly  detached  and  independent  stand- 
point. In  his  last  series  of  Slade  lectures  delivered  in  Oxford  {T^ 
Art  of  England,  1884,  p.  14  f.),  Mr.  Ruskin  wrote  as  follows: 
'  None  of  you,  who  have  the  least  acquaintance  with  the  general 
tenor  of  my  own  teaching,  will  suspect  me  of  any  bias  towards  the 
doctrine  of  vicarious  Sacrifice,  as  it  is  taught  by  the  modem 
Evangelical  Preacher.  But  the  great  mystery  of  the  idea  of 
Sacrifice  itself,  which  has  been  manifested  as  one  united  and 
solemn  instinct  by  all  thoughtful  and  affectionate  races,  since  the 
world  became  peopled,  is  founded  on  the  secret  truth  of  benevolent 
energy  which  all  men  who  have  tried  to  gain  it  have  learned — that 
you  cannot  save  men  from  death  but  by  facing  it  for  them,  nor 
from  sin  but  by  resisting  it  for  them  .  .  .  Some  day  or  other 
—probably  now  very  soon — -too  probably  by  heavy  afflictions  of 
the  State,  we  shall  be  taught  .  .  .  that  all  the  true  good  and 
glory  even  of  this  world — not  to  speak  of  any  that  is  to  come,  must 
be  bought  still,  as  it  always  has  been,  with  our  toil,  and  with  our 
tears.' 

After  all  the  writer  of  this  and  the  Evangelical  Preacher  whom 
he  repudiates  are  not  so  very  far  apart.  It  may  be  hoped  that  the 
Preacher  too  may  be  willing  to  purify  his  own  conception  and  to 
strip  it  of  some  quite  unbiblical  accretions,  and  he  will  then  find 
that  the  central  verity  for  which  he  contends  is  not  inadequately 
stated  in  the  impressive  words  just  quoted. 

The  idea  of  Vicarious  Suffering  is  not  the  whole  and  not 
perhaps  the  culminating  point  in  the  conception  of  Sacrifice,  for 
Dr.  Westcott  seems  to  have  sufficiently  shown  that  the  centre  of 
the  symbolism  of  Sacrifice  Hes  not  in  the  death  of  the  victim  but 
in  the  offering  of  its  life.  This  idea  of  Vicarious  Suffering,  which  is 
nevertheless  in  all  probability  the  great  difficulty  and  stumbling- 
block  in  the  way  of  the  acceptance  of  Bible  teaching  on  this  head, 
was  revealed  once  and  for  all  time  in  Isaiah  liii.  No  one  who 
reads  that  chapter  with  attention  can  fail  to  see  the  profound  truth 
which  lies  behind  it — a  truth  which  seems  to  gather  up  in  one  all 
that  is  most  pathetic  in  the  world's  history,  but  which  when  it  has 
done  so  turns  upon  it  the  light  of  truly  prophetic  and  divine  inspira- 
tion, gently  lifts  the  veil  from  the  accumulated  mass  of  pain  and 
sorrow,  and  shows  beneath  its  unspeakable  value  in  the  working  out 
of  human  redemption  and  regeneration  and  the  sublime  consolations 
by  which  for  those  who  can  enter  into  them  it  is  accompanied. 

I  said  that  this  chapter  gathers  up  in  one  all  that  is  most  pathetic 
in  the  world's  history.  It  gathers  it  up  as  it  were  in  a  single 
typical  Figure.  We  look  at  the  lineaments  of  that  Figure,  and 
then  we  transfer  our  gaze  and  we  recognize  them  all  translated 


94  EPISTLE    rO  THE   ROMANS  [ill.  27-8L 

from  idea  into  reality,  and  embodied  in  marvellous  perfecrion  upon 

Calvary. 

Following  the  example  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  and  the  Epistle 
to  ihe  Hebrews  we  speak  of  something  in  this  great  Sacrifice,  which 
we  call  '  Propitiation.'  We  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  spoke 
through  these  writers,  and  that  it  was  His  Will  that  we  should  use 
this  word.  But  it  is  a  word  which  we  must  leave  it  to  Him  to 
interpret.  We  drop  our  plummet  into  the  depth,  but  the  line 
attached  to  it  is  too  short,  and  it  does  not  touch  the  bottom.  The 
awful  processes  of  the  Divine  Mind  we  cannot  fathom.  Sufficient 
for  us  to  know  that  through  the  virtue  of  the  One  Sacrifice  our 
sacrifices  are  accepted,  that  the  barrier  which  Sin  places  between  us 
and  God  is  removed,  and  that  there  is  a  '  sprinkling '  which  makes 
us  free  to  approach  the  throne  of  grace. 

This,  it  may  still  be  objected,  is  but  a  '  fiction  of  mercy.'  All 
mercy,  all  forgiveness,  is  of  the  nature  of  fiction.  It  consists  in 
treating  men  better  than  they  deserve.  And  if  we  'being  evil' 
exercise  the  property  of  mercy  towards  each  other,  and  exercise  it 
not  rarely  out  of  consideration  for  the  merit  of  someone  else  than 
the  offender,  shall  not  our  Heavenly  Father  do  the  same  ? 


CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  NEW  SYSTEM. 

III.  27-81.  Hence  it  follows  (i)  that  no  claim  can  bi 
made  on  the  ground  of  human  merit,  for  there  is  no  merit 
in  Faith  (w.  27,  28) ;  (a)  that  Jew  and  Gentile  are  on  the 
same  footing,  for  there  is  but  one  God,  and  Faith  is  the  only 
means  of  acceptance  with  Him  (w.  29,  30). 

An  objector  may  say  that  Law  is  thus  abrogated.  On  the 
contrary  its  deeper  principles  are  fulfilled^  as  the  history  of 
Abraham  will  show  (ver.  31). 

•"  There  are  two  consequences  which  I  draw,  and  one  that  an 
objector  may  draw,  from  this.  The  first  is  that  such  a  method  of 
obtaining  righteousness  leaves  no  room  for  human  claims  or  merit. 
Any  such  thing  is  once  for  all  shut  out  For  the  Christian  system 
is  not  one  of  works — in  which  there  might  have  been  room  for 
merit — but  one  of  Faith.  *»  Thus  {qZp,  but  see  Crii.  Note)  we  believe 
that  Faith  is  the  condition  on  which  a  man  is  pronounced  righteous, 
and  not  a  round  of  acts  done  in  obedience  to  law. 

"The  second  consequence  [already  hinted  at  in  wr.  a  a]  is  thai 


III.  27,  28.]  CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  NEW  SYSTEM  95 

Jew  and  Gentile  are  on  the  same  footing.  If  thej  are  not,  Aien 
God  must  be  God  of  the  Jews  in  some  exclusive  sense  in  which 
He  is  not  God  of  the  Gentiles.  ••  Is  that  so  ?  Not  if  I  am  right 
in  affirming  that  there  is  but  one  God,  Who  requires  but  one 
condition — Fsiith,  on  which  He  is  ready  to  treat  as  'righteous' 
alike  the  circumcised  and  the  uncircumcised — the  circumcised  with 
whom  Faith  is  the  moving  cause,  and  the  uncircumcised  with  whom 
the  same  Faith  is  both  moving  cause  and  sole  condition  of  their 
acceptance. 

"  The  objector  asks :  Does  not  such  a  system  throw  over  Law 
altogether  ?  Far  from  it.  Law  itself  (speaking  through  the  Penta- 
teuch) lays  down  principles  (Faith  and  Promise)  which  find  their 
true  fulfilment  in  Christianity. 

27.  <C<KXei(r9f} :  an  instance  of  the  *  summarizing '  force  of  the 
aorist ;  *  it  is  shut  out  once  for  all,'  '  by  one  decisive  act.' 

St  Panl  has  hi*  eye  rather  apoa  the  deciiiveness  of  the  act  than  apon  iti 
contintied  result.  In  English  it  is  more  natural  to  m  to  express  dedsiveness 
by  laying  stress  npon  the  result — '  is  shat  out' 

ftid  TToiou  ^ftou  :  vdftov  here  may  be  paraphrased  '  system,'  '  Law ' 
being  the  typical  expression  to  the  ancient  mind  of  a  *  constituted 
order  of  things.' — Under  what  kind  of  system  is  this  result  obtained  ? 
Under  a  system  the  essence  of  which  is  Faith. 

Similar  metaphorical  oset  of  v6ftot  would  be  ch.  tU.  ai,  as ;  tUL  a ;  s.  31, 
on  which  see  the  Notes. 

28.  oSk  recapitulates  and  summarizes  what  has  gone  before. 
The  result  of  the  whole  matter  stated  briefly  is  that  God  declares 
righteous,  &c.  But  it  must  be  confessed  that  yap  gives  the  better 
sense.  We  do  not  want  a  summary  statement  in  the  middle  of  an 
argument  which  is  otherwise  coherent  The  alternative  reading, 
XoytCofifda  yap,  helps  that  coherence.  [The  Jew's]  boasting  is 
excluded,  becaust  justification  turns  on  nothing  which  is  the  peculiar 
possession  of  the  Jew  but  on  Faith.  And  so  Gentile  and  Jew  are 
on  the  same  footing,  as  we  might  expect  they  would  be,  seeing 
^t  they  have  the  same  God. 

oSf  BCEKKLP  &c;  Syn.  (Pesh.-Harcl.) ;  Chrys.  Theodrt  «/. ;  Weiaa 
RV.  WH.  marg. :  f6f  H  A  D*  E  F  G  a/,  plur. ;  Latt.  (Vet.-Vulg.)  Boh. 
Ann. ;  Orig.-lat.  Ambrst  Aug. ;  Tisch.  WH.  text  RV.  marg.  The  evidence 
for  yap  is  largely  Western,  but  it  is  combined  with  an  element  (K  A,  Boh.) 
which  in  this  instance  is  probably  not  Western ;  so  that  the  reading  would 
be  carried  back  beyond  the  point  of  divergence  of  two  most  ancient  lines  of 
text.  On  the  other  hand  B  admits  in  this  Epistle  some  comparatively  late 
readings  (cf.  xi.  6)  and  the  authorities  associated  with  it  are  inferior  (B  C  ia 
Efp.  is  not  so  strong  a  combination  as  6  C  in  G*spp.).  Wc  i»efer  the 
reading  y(t.p. 


96  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [HI.  28-81 

8iitaiou(r6oi :    we  must  hold  fast  to  the  rendering  'is  declared 

righteous.'  not  '  is  made  righteous ' ;  cf.  on  i.  17. 

o.vQpu>ttjiv :  any  human  being. 

29.  T]  presents,  but  only  to  dismiss,  an  alternative  hypothesis  on 
the  assumption  of  which  the  Jew  might  still  have  had  something  to 
boast  of.  In  rejecting  this,  St.  Paul  once  more  emphatically 
asserts  his  main  position.  There  is  but  one  law  (Faith),  and  there 
is  but  one  Judge  to  administer  it.  Though  faith  is  spoken  of  in 
this  abstract  way  it  is  of  course  Christian  faith,  faith  in  Christ. 

)i6vov :  novw  B  al.  ftur.,  WH.  marg. ;  perhaps  auimilated  to  lovSoW 
.  .  .  KoX  iOvwv. 

30.  «iTr«p  :  decisively  attested  in  place  of  Ittflirtp.  The  old  distinction 
drawn  between  tl  -nip  and  tl  7*  was  that  tt  -ntp  is  used  of  a  condition  which 
is  assnnird  without  implying  whether  it  is  rightly  or  wrongly  assumed,  tl  y« 
of  a  condition  which  carries  with  it  the  assertion  of  its  own  reality  (Hermann 
on  Viger,  p.  831 ;  Baumlein,  Griech.  Partikeln,  p.  64V  It  is  doubtful 
whether  this  distinction  holds  in  Classical  Greek ;  it  can  hardly  hold  for 
N.T.  But  in  any  case  both  cf  vtp  and  «!  7f  lay  some  stress  on  the  condition, 
as  a  condition:  cf.  Monro,  Homerie  Grammar,  §§  353,  354  '  The  Particle 
»f'/)  is  evidently  a  shorter  form  of  the  Preposition  vipi,  which  in  its  adverbial 
use  has  the  meaning  beyond,  excetdingly.  Accordingly  iikp  is  intensive, 
denoting  that  the  word  to  which  it  is  subjoined  is  true  in  a  high  degree,  in 
its  fullest  sense,  &c.  ...  7*  is  used  like  vip  to  emphasize  a  particular  word 
or  phrase.  It  does  not  however  intensify  the  meaning,  or  insist  on  the  fact 
as  true,  but  only  calls  attention  to  the  word  or  fact.  ...  In  a  Conditional 
Protasis  (with  os.  on,  fl,  &c.),  yt  emphasiies  the  condition  as  such:  hence 
ti  yf  if  only,  always  supposing  that.  On  the  other  hand  tl  mtf  means 
supposing  ever  to  muth,  hence  if  really  (Lat.  si  quident).' 

6K  TTiCTTcws  . .  .  Bid  TTjs  TTitTTcus  :  (K  dcuotcs  '  sourcc,'  bia  '  attend- 
ant circumstances.'  The  Jew  is  justified  <«  ma-Ttms  i«a  n-tpiTonTjt : 
the  force  at  work  is  faith,  the  channel  through  which  it  works  is 
circumcision.  The  Gentile  is  justified  « rriarfas  Koi  Sia  r^s  n-tWcwr : 
no  special  channel,  no  special  conditions  are  marked  out ;  faith  is 
the  one  thing  needful,  it  is  itself  '  both  law  and  impulse.' 

8id  TTJs  irioTcws  =: '  the  same  faith,'  '  the  faith  just  men- 
tioned.' 

81.  KaTapyoufifr :  see  on  ver.  3  above. 

»'<5(ioK  loTwfAef.  If,  as  we  must  needs  think,  oh.  iv  contains  the 
proof  of  the  proposition  laid  down  in  this  verse,  vo^ov  must  =  ulti- 
mately and  virtually  the  Pentateuch.  But  it  =  the  Pentateuch  not 
as  an  isolated  Book  but  as  the  most  conspicuous  and  representative 
expression  of  that  great  system  of  Law  which  f)revailed  everywhere 
until  the  coming  of  Christ. 

The  Jew  looked  at  the  O.  T.,  and  he  saw  there  Law,  Obedience 
to  Law  or  Works,  Circumcision,  Descent  from  Abraham.  St.  Paul 
said,  Look  again  and  look  deeper,  and  you  will  see — not  Law  but 
Promise,  not  works  but  Faith — of  which  Circumcision  is  only  the 
seal,  not  literal  descent  from  Abraham  but  spiritual  descent  AU 
these  things  are  realized  in  Christianity. 


IV.  1-8.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  97 

And  then  farther,  whereas  Law  (all  Law  and  any  kind  of 
Law)  was  only  an  elaborate  machinery  for  producing  right  action, 
there  too  Christianity  stepped  in  and  accomplished,  as  if  with  the 
stroke  of  a  wand,  all  that  the  Law  strove  to  do  without  success 
(Rom.  xiii.  lo  wX^pana  ovv  voitov  if  oycun;  Compared  with  Gal.  v.  6 

•ivrtff  d»'  cyainpf  ntfyyovfionj). 


TES  FAITH  OF  ABBAHAM. 

rv.  1-8.  Take  the  crucial  case  of  Abraham.  He,  like 
the  Christian,  was  declared  righteous,  not  on  account  of  his 
works — as  something  earned,  but  by  the  free  gift  of  God  in 
response  to  his  faith.  And  David  describes  a  similar  state 
of  things.  The  happiness  of  which  he  speaks  is  due,  not  to 
sinlessness  but  to  God" s  free  forgivetiess  of  sins. 

'  Objectok.  You  speak  of  the  history  of  Abraham.  Surely 
he,  the  ancestor  by  natural  descent  of  our  Jewish  race,  might  plead 
privilege  and  merit  •  If  we  Jews  are  right  in  supposing  that  God 
accepted  him  as  righteous  for  his  works — those  illustrious  acts  of 
his — he  has  something  to  boast  of. 

St.  Paul.  Perhaps  he  has  before  men,  but  not  before  God. 
•  For  look  at  the  Word  of  God,  that  well-known  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture, Gen.  XV.  6.  What  do  we  find  there  ?  Nothing  about  works, 
but  '  Abraham  put  faith  in  God,'  and  it  (L  e.  his  faith)  was  credited 
to  him  as  if  it  were  righteousness. 

*  This  proves  that  there  was  no  question  of  works.  For  a  work- 
man claims  his  pay  as  a  debt  due  to  him;  it  is  not  an  act  of 
favour.  'But  to  one  who  is  not  concerned  with  works  but  puts 
fciith  in  God  Who  pronounces  righteous  not  the  actually  righteous 
(in  which  there  would  be  nothing  wonderful)  but  the  ungodly — to 
such  an  one  his  faith  is  credited  for  righteousness. 

*Just  as  again  David  in  Ps.  xxxii  describes  how  God  'pro- 
nounces happy '  (in  the  highest  sense)  those  to  whom  he  attributes 
righteousness  without  any  reference  to  works  :  ' '  Happy  they,'  he 
says, — not  *who  have  been  guilty  of  no  breaches  of  law,'  but 
•whose  breaches  of  law  have  been  forgiven  and  whose  sins  are 
veiled  from  sight.  '  A  happy  man  is  he  whose  sin  Jehovah  will 
not  enter  in  His  booL' 


98  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IV.  I. 

Iff.     The  main  argument  of  this  chapter  is  quite  clear  but 

the  opening  clauses  are  slightly  embarrassed  and  obscure,  due 
as  it  would  seem  to  the  crossing  of  other  lines  of  thought  with 
the  main  lines.  The  proposition  which  the  Apostle  sets  him- 
self to  prove  is  that  Law,  and  more  particularly  the  Pentateuch, 
is  not  destroyed  but  fulfilled  by  the  doctrine  which  he  preaches. 
But  the  way  of  putting  this  is  affected  by  two  thoughts,  which  still 
exert  some  influence  from  the  last  chapter,  (i)  the  question  as  to 
the  advantage  of  the  Jew.  (ii)  the  pride  or  boasting  which  wa:* 
a  characteristic  feature  in  the  character  of  the  Jew  but  which 
St.  Paul  held  to  be  '  excluded.'  Hitherto  these  two  points  have 
been  considered  in  the  broadest  and  most  general  manner,  but 
St.  Paul  now  narrows  them  down  to  the  particular  and  crucial  case 
of  Abraham.  The  case  of  Abraham  was  the  centre  and  strong- 
hold of  the  whole  Jewish  position.  If  therefore  it  could  be  shown 
that  this  case  made  for  the  Christian  conclusion  and  not  for  the 
Jewish,  the  latter  broke  down  altogether.  This  is  what  St.  Paul 
now  undertakes  to  prove  ;  but  at  the  outset  he  glances  at  the  two 
side  issues — main  issues  in  ch.  iii  which  become  side  issues  in 
ch.  iv — the  claim  of  •  advantage,'  or  special  privilege,  and  the  pnde 
which  the  Jewish  system  generated.  For  the  sake  of  clearness  we 
put  these  thoughts  into  the  mouth  of  the  objector.  He  is  of  course 
still  a  supposed  objector ;  St.  Paul  is  really  arguing  with  himself  j 
but  the  arguments  are  such  as  he  might  very  possibly  have  met 
with  in  actual  controversy  (see  on  iii.  i  ff.). 

1.  The  first  question  is  one  of  reading.  There  is  an  important 
variant  turning  upon  the  position  or  presence  of  eoptju^foi.  (i) 
K  L  P,  &c.,  Theodrt.  and  later  Fathers  (the  Syriac  Versions  which 
are  quoted  by  Tischendorf  supply  no  evidence)  place  it  after  ri* 
wponaTopa  rjfiwv.  It  is  then  taken  with  Kara  adpKa  \  '  What  shall  we 
say  that  A.  has  gained  by  his  natural  powers  unaided  by  the  grace 
of  God  ? '     So  Bp.  Bull  after  Theodoret.     jTEuthym.-Zig.  however, 

even  with  this  reading,  takes  Kara  aapKa  with  naripa  :    i-ntpliarhv  yaft 

TO  Kara  adpKo].  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  context.  The 
question  is  not,  what  Abraham  had  gained  by  the  grace  of  God  or 
without  it,  but  whether  the  new  system  professed  by  St.  Paul  left 
him  any  gain  or  advantage  at  all.  (a)  MACDEFG,  some  cur- 
sives, Vulg.  Boh.  Arm.  Aeth.,  Orig.-lat.  Ambrstr.  and  others,  place 
after  (povptv.  In  that  case  Kara  aapxa  goes  not  with  «vpt]Kivai  but 
with  Tov  npondropa  fjpoiv  which  it  simply  defines,  ' our  natural  pro- 
genitor.' (3)  But  a  small  group,  B,  47*,  and  apparently  Chrysostom 
from  the  tenor  of  his  comment,  though  the  printed  editions  give  it 
in  his  text,  omit  tvprfKfvm  altogether.  Then  the  idea  of  'gain* 
drops  out  and  we  translate  simply  '  What  shall  we  say  as  to 
Abraham  our  forefather  ? '  &c.  The  opponents  of  B  will  sar  that 
the  sense  thus  given  is  suspiciously  easy  :    it  is  certainly  more 


IT.  1,  a.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  99 

satisfactory  than  that  of  either  of  the  other  readings.  The  point  is 
not  what  Abraham  got  by  his  righteousness,  but  how  he  got  his 
righteousness — by  the  method  of  works  or  by  that  of  faith.  Does 
the  nature  of  A.'s  righteousness  agree  better  with  the  Jewish 
system,  or  with  St.  Paul's  ?  The  idea  of  '  gain '  was  naturally 
imported  from  ch,  iii.  i,  9.  There  is  no  reason  why  a  right  reading 
should  not  be  preserved  in  a  small  group,  and  the  fluctuating 
position  of  a  word  often  points  to  doubtful  genuineness.  We 
therefore  regard  the  omission  of  tvprjKfvai  as  probable  with  WH. 
texi  Tr.  RV.  marg.     For  the  construction  comp.  John  L  15  oJrot 

1-5.  One  or  two  small  qnestions  of  form  may  be  noticed.  In  ver.  i 
npoiriTopa  (N***' A  B  C*  a/.)  is  decisively  attested  for  irartpa,  which  is 
found  in  the  later  MSS.  and  commentators.  In  ver.  3  the  acute  and  sleepless 
critic  Origan  thinks  that  St.  Paul  wrote  'Afipa/x  (with  Heb.  of  Gen.  xv ,  cf. 
Gen.  xvii.  <;),  but  that  Gentile  scribes  who  were  less  scrupulous  as  to  the 
text  of  Scripture  substituted  'A^poAfi.  It  is  more  probable  that  St.  Paul  had 
before  his  mind  the  established  and  significant  name  throughout :  he  quotes 
Gen.  xvii.  5  in  ver.  17.  In  ver.  5  a  small  group  (N  D*  F  G)  have  dat^Tji',  on 
which  form  see  WH.  Intrvd.  App.  p.  157  f. ;  Win  Gr.  ed.  8,  §  ix.  8 ;  Tisch. 
00  Heb.  vi.  19.  In  this  instance  the  attestation  may  be  wholly  Western,  bat 
not  in  others. 

ihv  irpoirdTopa  ^fifflr.  This  description  of  Abraham  as  '  our  fore- 
father '  is  one  of  the  arguments  used  by  those  who  would  make  the 
majority  of  the  Roman  Church  consist  of  Jews.  St.  Paul  is  not 
very  careful  to  distinguish  between  himself  and  his  readers  in  such 
a  matter.  For  instance  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  who  were 
undoubtedly  for  the  most  part  Gentiles,  he  speaks  of  '  our  fathers ' 
as  being  under  the  cloud  and  passing  through  the  sea  (i  Cor.  x.  i). 
There  is  the  less  reason  why  he  should  discriminate  here  as  he  is 
just  about  to  maintain  that  Abraham  is  the  father  of  all  believers, 
Jew  and  Gentile  alike, — though  it  is  true  that  he  would  have  added 
'  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  spirit.'  Gif.  notes  the  further  point, 
that  the  question  is  put  as  proceeding  from  a  Jew ;  along  with 
Orig.  Chrys.  Phot.  Euthym.-Zig.  Lips,  he  connects  t6v  irpondr.  f^i. 
with  Kara  aapKo,  It  should  be  mentioned,  however,  that  Dr.  Hort 
{Rom.  and  Eph.  p.  23  f.)  though  relegating  (vpriKtvtu  to  the  margin, 

still  does  not  take  icara  aapKa  with  t6v  irponuTopa  fip,cop. 

2.  Kaux^lf^a:  'Not  materies  gloriandi  as  Meyer,  but  rather 
gloriatto,  as  Bengel,  who  however  might  have  addedyif/a '  (T.  S. 
Evans  in  Sp.  Comtn.  on  i  Cor.  v.  6).  The  termination  -pa  denotes 
not  so  much  the  thing  done  as  the  completed,  determinate,  act; 
for  other  examples  see  esp.  Evans  ui  sup.  It  would  not  be  wrong 
to  translate  here  'has  a  ground  of  boasting,'  but  the  idea  of 
'  ground '  is  contained  in  ex«,  or  rather  in  the  context. 

dXX'  06  irp^  Tie  ectS^.  It  seems  best  to  explain  the  introduction 
vi  this  clause  by  some  such  ellipse  as  that  which  is  supplied  in  the 

■  • 


lOO  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IV.  2,  8. 

paraphrase.  There  should  be  a  colon  after  xaixntt'^'  St  Paul 
does  not  question  the  supposed  claim  that  Abraham  has  a  <tavx»7M« 
absolutely — before  man  he  might  have  it  and  the  Jews  were  not 
wrong  in  the  veneration  with  which  they  regarded  his  memory, — 
but  it  was  another  thing  to  have  a  Kaixntia  before  God.  There  is 
a  stress  upon  r6v  ei6¥  which  is  taken  up  by  r^  e*^  in  the  quota- 
tion. '  A.  could  not  boast  before  God.  He  might  have  done  so 
if  he  could  nave  taken  his  stand  on  works ;  but  works  did  not 
enter  into  the  question  at  all.  In  God  he  put  faith.'  On  the 
history  and  application  of  the  text  Gen.  xv.  6,  see  below. 

8.  iXoYiaGr] ;  metaphor  from  accounts,  '  was  set  down,'  here  '  on 
the  credit  side.'  Frequently  in  LXX  with  legal  sense  of  imputation 
or  non-imputation  of  guilt,  e.g.  Lev.  vii.  8  tav  ii  (/>aycl>v  <f>ayii  . . .  oi 
\oyia6f](TfTai  avr^,  xvii.  4  \oyi(y6i}(rtT(u  tm  avdpamtf  tKtivtf  (Ufia,  Ac. 
The  notion  arises  from  that  of  the  '  book  of  remembrance '  (Mai. 
iii.  16)  in  which  men's  good  or  evil  deeds,  the  wrongs  and 
suflferinws  of  the  saints,  are  entered  (Ps.  Ivi.  8  ;  Is.  Ixv.  6).  Oriental 
monarchs  had  such  a  record  by  which  they  were  reminded  of  the 
merit  or  demerit  of  their  subjects  (Esth.  vi.  i  flf.),  and  in  like 
manner  on  the  judgement  day  Jehovah  would  have  the  'books' 
brought  out  before  Him  (Dan.  vii.  10;  Rev.  xx.  la;  comp.  also 
'  the  books  of  the  living,'  '  the  heavenly  tablets,'  a  common  expres- 
sion in  the  Books  of  Enoch,  Jubilees,  and  Test.  XII  Pair.,  on  which 
see  Charles  on  Enoch  xlvii.  3 ;  and  in  more  modem  times, 
Cowper's  sonnet '  There  is  a  book  .  .  .  wherein  the  eyes  of  God 
not  rarely  look '). 

The  idea  of  imputation  in  this  sense  was  familiar  to  the  Jews 
(Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol.  p.  233).  They  had  also  the  idea  of  the 
transference  of  merit  and  demerit  from  one  person  to  another 
{ibid.  p.  280  flf. ;  Ezek.  xviii.  a  ;  John  ix.  a).  That  however  is  not 
in  question  here ;  the  point  is  that  one  quaUty  faith  is  set  down,  <x 
credited,  to  the  individual  (here  to  Abraham)  in  place  of  another 
quality — righteousness. 

AoyiaOT)  auTu  cis  8iKaioauin()K :  was  reckoned  as  equivalent  to,  as 
standing  in  the  place  of  '  righteousness.'  The  construction  is 
common  in  LXX:  cf.  i  Reg.  (Sam.)  i.  13;  Job  xU.  23  (24);  Is. 
xxix.  17  (=xxxii.  15);  Lam.  iv.  a;  Hos.  viii.  12.  The  exact 
phrase  i'Koyiadr)  aira  tls  ducaiocr.  recurs  in  Ps.  cv  [cvi],  31  of  the 
zeal  of  Phinehas.  On  the  grammar  cf.  Win.  §  xxix.  3  a.  (p.  aap, 
ed.  Moulton). 

On  the  righteousness  of  Abraham  see  esp.  Weber,  Altsyn.  Paldst. 
Theologie,  p.  255  flf.  Abraham  was  the  only  righteous  man  of  his 
generation ;  therefore  he  was  chosen  to  be  ancestor  of  the  holy 
People.  He  kept  all  the  precepts  of  the  Law  which  he  knew 
beforehand  by  a  kind  of  intuition.  He  was  the  first  of  seven 
righteous  men  whose  merit  brought  ba^  the  Shekinah  which  had 


IV.  8-6.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  101 

retired  into  the  seventh  heaven,  so  that  in  the  days  of  Moses  h 
could  take  up  its  abode  in  the  Tabernacle  {ibid.  p.  183).  According 
to  the  Jews  the  original  righteousness  of  Abraham,  who  began  to 
serve  God  at  the  age  of  three  {ibid.  p.  118)  was  perfected  (i)  by  his 
circumcision,  (a)  by  his  anticipatory  fulfilment  of  the  Law.  But 
the  Jews  also  (on  the  strength  of  Gen.  xv.  6)  attached  a  special 
importance  to  Abraham's  faith,  as  constituting  merit  (see  Mechilta 
on  £x.  xiv.  31,  quoted  by  Delitzsch  ad  loc.  and  by  Lightfoot  in  the 
extract  given  below). 

4.  6.  An  illustration  from  common  life.  The  workman  earns 
his  pay,  and  can  claim  it  as  a  right.  Therefore  when  God  bestows 
the  gift  of  righteousness,  of  His  own  bounty  and  not  as  a  right,  that 
is  proof  that  the  gift  must  be  called  forth  by  something  other  than 
works,  viz.  by  faith. 

5.  l-aX  t6k  SiKaioui^a:  'on  Him  who  pronounces  righteous'  or 
'  acquits,'  i.  e.  God.  It  is  rather  a  departure  from  St.  Paul's  more 
usual  practice  to  make  the  object  of  faith  God  the  Father  rather 
than  God  the  Son.  But  even  here  the  Christian  scheme  is  in  view, 
and  faith  in  God  is  faith  in  Him  as  the  alternative  Author  of  that 
scheme.     See  on  i.  8,  17,  above. 

We  muit  not  be  misled  by  the  comment  of  Euthym.-Zig.  rovriari  «<rr«iJom 
8t«  Svvarcu  h  ©«i»  tov  \v  aff(l3ei.q.  ^efficaKora,  rovroy  ((aitpvijt  ov  fiivov  k\tv- 
Otpwffcu  KoK&aiws,  aWd,  itai  SiKaiov  iroi^acu  (comp.  the  same  writer  on  ver.  25 
tva  SiKoiovs  ijnas  iroi^a^).  The  evidence  is  too  decisive  (p.  30  f.  suf.)  that 
SiKaiovv  •=  not  '  to  make  righteous '  but  '  to  declare  righteous  as  a  judge.* 
It  might  however  be  inferred  from  i^ai(pvrji  that  dUatov  iroirjaai  was  to  be 
taken  somewhat  loosely  in  the  sense  of  '  treat  as  righteous.'  The  Greek 
theologians  had  not  a  clear  conception  of  the  doctrine  of  Justification. 

t6k  do'c^T] :  not  meant  as  a  description  of  Abraham,  from  whose 
case  St.  Paul  is  now  generalizing  and  applying  the  conclusion  to 
his  own  time.  The  strong  word  da-t^rj  is  probably  suggested  by 
the  quotation  which  is  just  coming  from  Ps.  xxxii.  i. 

6.  Aapi'S  (Aao€i8).  Both  Heb.  and  LXX  ascribe  Ps.  xxxii  to 
David.  In  two  places  in  the  N.  T.,  Acts  iv,  25,  26  (=  Ps.  ii.  i,  a), 
Heb.  iv.  7  (s=  Ps.  xcv.  7)  Psalms  are  quoted  as  David's  which  have 
no  title  in  the  Hebrew  (though  Ps.  xcv  [xciv]  bears  the  name  ot 
David  in  the  LXX),  showing  that  by  this  date  the  whole  Psalter 
was  known  by  his  name.  Ps.  xxxii  was  one  of  those  which  Ewald 
thought  might  really  be  David's  :  see  Driver,  Introduction,  p.  357. 

T^K  iiaKapicr^iiv :  not  '  blessedness,'  which  would  be  /zarapidn;* 
but  a  'pronouncing  blessed';  fiaKapi(fiv  nvass'to  call  a  person 

blessed  or   happy  '  (roOt  tc  yap  6€ovs  fiaKapi^ofUV   ,    .    .   (tai  Tb>v  dvdpiv 

Tovs  dtioTOTovs  fiaKaplContv  Arist.  £th.  Nic.  I.  xii.  4 ;  comp.  Euthym.- 
Zig.  tTriratrit  ii  Koi  Kopvcprf  Tiprjs  koI  86^t]s  6  fiaKopicrpos,  '  Felicitation  is 
the  strongest  and  highest  form  of  honour  and  praise ').  St.  Paul 
uses  the  word  again  Gal.  iv.  15.  Who  is  it  who  thus  pronounces  9 
man  blessed  ?     God.     The  Psalm  describes  how  He  does  so. 


lOa  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IV.  7,  a 

7,  8.  MaKcJpioi,  ILT.X.  This  quotation  of  Ps.  xxxii.  i,  »  is  the  same 
in  Heb.  and  LXX.  It  is  introduced  by  St.  Paul  as  confirming  his 
interpretation  of  Gen.  xv.  6. 

paKcipioi  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  highest  term  which  a  Greek 
could  use  to  describe  a  state  of  felicity.  In  the  quotation  just  given 
from  Aristotle  it  is  applied  to  the  state  of  the  gods  and  those  nearest 
to  the  gods  among  men. 

^oif^-f^.    SoK»ACD«FKL&c.:  oJo*^  KBDE(t)G,67*».    o8  b 

also  the  reading  of  LXX  (^  K«*  R»).  The  authorities  for  ol  are  superior  M 
they  combine  the  oldest  evidence  on  the  two  main  lines  of  transmission 
i  N  B  +  D)  and  it  if  on  the  whole  more  probable  that  ^  has  been  assimilated 
to  the  construction  of  Koyl((ff9cu  in  yt.  3,  4,  5,  6  than  that  o5  has  been 
assimilated  to  the  preceding  «r  or  to  the  O.T.  or  that  it  has  been  affected 
by  the  following  ov :  ^  natorally  esUblished  itself  as  the  moie  euphonio«i 
remding. 

od  (1^  XoyicrriTm*.  There  is  a  natural  tendency  in  a  declining 
language  to  the  use  of  more  emphatic  forms ;  but  here  a  real 
emphasis  appears  to  be  intended,  '  Whose  sin  the  Lord  will  in  no 
wise  reckon':  see  EIL  on  1  Thess.  iv.  15  [p.  154],  and  Win.  $  Ivi. 
3,  p.  634  t 


Thi  History  of  Abraham  as  treated  by  St.  Paul 
and  by  St.  Javus. 

It  is  at  first  sight  a  remarkable  thing  that  two  New  Testament 
writers  should  use  the  same  leading  example  and  should  quote  the 
same  leading  text  as  it  would  seem  to  directly  opposite  effect. 
Both  St  Paul  and  St.  James  treat  at  some  length  of  the  history  of 
Abraham ;  they  both  quote  the  same  verse,  Gen.  xv.  6,  as  the 
salient  characterization  of  that  history ;  and  they  draw  from  it  the 
conclusion — St.  Paul  that  a  man  is  accounted  righteous  n-torct  x«»P«« 
Jpytov  (Rom.  iiu  38  ;  cf.  iv.  1-8),  St.  James  as  expressly,  that  he  is 
accounted  righteous  i^  epyaiv  koI  oint  «'«:  jrtoTfwr  fiovov  ( Jas.  ii.  24). 

We  notice  at  once  that  St.  Paul  keeps  more  strictly  to  his  text. 
Gen.  XV.  6  speaks  only  of  faith.  St.  James  supports  his  contention 
of  the  necessity  of  works  by  appeal  to  a  later  incident  in  Abraham's 
life,  the  offering  of  Isaac  (Jas.  ii.  21).  St.  Paul  also  appeals  to 
^)articular  incidents,  Abraham's  belief  in  the  promise  that  he  should 
have  a  numerous  progeny  (Rom.  iv.  18),  and  in  the  more  express 
prediction  of  the  birth  of  Isaac  (Rom.  iv.  19-21).  The  difference 
is  that  Sl  Paul  makes  use  of  a  more  searching  exegesis.  His  own 
spiritual  experience  confirms  the  unqualified  afiirmation  of  the 
Book  of  Genesis ;  and  he  is  therefore  able  to  take  it  as  one  of  the 
foi\ndations  of  his  system.     St  James,  occupying  a  less  exceptional 


IV    1-8.]  THE   FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  IO3 

Standpoint,  and  taking  words  in  the  average  sense  put  upon  them, 

has  recourse  to  the  context  of  Abraham's  life,  and  so  harmonizes 
the  text  with  the  requirements  of  his  own  moral  sense. 

The  fact  is  that  St.  James  and  Su  Paul  mean  different  things  by 
*  faith,'  and  as  was  natural  they  inipos*  these  different  meanings  on 
the  Book  of  Genesis,  and  adapt  the  .?st  of  their  conclusions  to 
them.  When  St.  James  heard  speak  of '  faith,'  he  understood  by 
it  what  the  letter  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  allowed  him  to  understand 
by  it,  a  certain  belief.  It  is  what  a  Jew  would  consider  the  funda- 
mental belief,  belief  in  God,  belief  that  God  was  One  (Jas.  ii.  19). 
Christianity  it  with  him  so  much  a  supplement  to  the  Jews'  ordinary 
creed  that  it  does  not  seem  to  be  specially  present  to  his  mind 
when  he  is  speaking  of  Abraham.  Of  course  he  too  believes  in  the 
'Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  Gloy '  (Jas.  ii.  i).  He  takes  that 
belief  for  granted  ;  it  is  the  substratum  or  basement  of  life  on  which 
are  not  to  be  built  such  things  as  a  wrong  or  corrupt  partiality 
(jrpoo-ftwroXf^i'a).  If  he  were  questioned  about  it,  he  would  put  it  on 
the  same  footing  as  his  belief  in  God.  But  St.  James  was  a 
thoroughly  honest,  and,  as  we  should  say,  a  '  good  '  man ;  and  this 
did  not  satisfy  his  moral  sense.  What  is  belief  unless  proof  is  given 
of  its  sincerity  ?  Belief  must  be  followed  up  by  action,  by  a  line 
of  conduct  conformable  to  it.  St.  James  would  have  echoed 
Matthew  Arnold's  proposition  that  '  Conduct  is  three-fourths  of 
life.'  He  therefore  demands — and  from  his  point  of  view  rightly 
demands — that  his  readers  shall  authenticate  their  beliefs  by  putting 
them  in  practice, 

St.  Paul's  is  a  very  different  temperament,  and  he  speaks  from  a 
very  different  experience.  With  him  too  Christianity  is  something 
added  to  an  earlier  belief  in  God ;  but  the  process  by  which  it  was 
added  was  nothing  less  than  a  convulsion  of  his  whole  nature  It 
is  like  the  stream  of  molten  lava  pouring  down  the  volcano's  ^ide. 
Christianity  is  with  him  a  tremendous  over-masteriuL!;  force.  The 
crisis  came  at  the  moment  when  he  confessed  his  faith  in  Christ ; 
there  was  no  other  crisis  worth  the  name  after  that.  Ask  such 
an  one  whether  his  faith  is  not  to  be  proved  by  action,  and  the 
question  will  seem  to  him  trivial  and  superfluous.  He  will  almost 
suspect  the  questioner  of  attempting  to  brmg  back  under  a  new 
name  the  old  Jewish  notion  of  rehgion  as  a  round  of  legal 
observance.  Of  course  action  will  correspond  with  fiiiih.  The 
believer  in  Christ,  who  has  put  on  Christ,  who  has  died  with  Ciirist 
and  risen  again  with  him,  must  needs  to  the  very  utmost  of  his 
power  endeavour  to  Uve  as  Christ  would  have  him  live.  St.  Paul 
is  going  on  presently  to  say  this  (Rom.  vi.  i,  13,  15),  as  his 
opponents  compel  him  to  say  it.  But  to  himself  it  appears  a 
truism,  which  is  hardly  worth  definitely  enunciating.  To  say  that 
a  man  is  a  Christian  should  be  enough. 


I04  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IV.  1-& 

If  we  thus  understand  the  real  relation  of  the  two  Apostles,  it  will 
be  easier  to  discuss  their  literary  relation.  Are  we  to  suppose  that 
either  was  writing  with  direct  reference  to  the  other  ?  Did  St.  Paul 
mean  to  controvert  St.  James,  or  did  St.  James  mean  to  controvert 
St.  Paul?  Neither  hypothesis  seems  probable.  If  St.  Paul  had 
had  before  him  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  when  once  he  looked 
beneath  the  language  to  the  ideas  signified  by  the  language,  he 
would  have  found  nothing  to  which  he  could  seriously  object.  He 
would  hare  been  aware  that  it  was  not  his  own  way  of  putting 
things;  and  he  might  have  thought  that  such  teaching  was  not 
intended  for  men  at  the  highest  level  of  spiritual  attainment ;  but 
that  would  have  been  all.  On  the  other  hand,  if  St.  James  had 
seen  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  wished  to  answer  it,  what  he 
has  written  would  have  been  totally  inadequate.  Whatever  value 
his  criticism  might  have  had  for  those  who  spoke  of  *  faith '  as 
a  mere  matter  of  formal  assent,  it  had  no  relevance  to  a  faith  such 
as  that  conceived  by  St.  Paul.  Besides,  St.  Paul  had  too  effectually 
guarded  himself  against  the  moral  hypocrisy  which  he  was  con- 
demning. 

It  would  thus  appear  that  when  it  is  examined  the  real  meeting- 
ground  between  the  two  Apostles  shrinks  into  a  comparatively 
narrow  compass.  It  does  not  amount  to  more  than  the  fact  that 
both  quote  the  same  verse.  Gen.  xv.  6,  and  both  treat  it  with 
reference  to  the  antithesis  of  Works  and  Faith. 

Now  Bp,  Lightfoot  has  shown  {Galatians,  p.  157  flF.,  ed.  s)  that 
Gen.  XV.  6  was  a  standing  thesis  for  discussions  in  the  Jewish  schools. 
It  is  referred  to  in  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees:  'Was  not 
Abraham  found  faithful  in  temptation,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him 
for  righteousness '  (i  Mace.  ii.  5a)  ?  It  is  repeatedly  quoted  and 
commented  upon  by  Philo  (no  less  than  ten  times,  Lft.).  The 
whole  history  of  Abraham  is  made  the  subject  of  an  elaborate 
allegory.  The  Talmudic  treatise  Mechilta  expounds  the  verse  at 
length :  *  Great  is  faith,  whereby  Israel  believed  on  Him  that  spake 
and  the  world  was.  For  as  a  reward  for  Israel's  having  believed  in 
the  Lord,  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelt  in  them  ...  In  like  manner  thou 
findest  that  Abraham  our  father  inherited  this  world  and  the  world 
to  come  solely  by  the  merit  of  faith,  whereby  he  believed  in  the 
Lord  ;  for  it  is  said,  "  and  he  believed  in  the  Lord,  and  He  counted 
it  to  him  for  righteousness  " '  (quoted  by  Lft.  ut  sup.  p.  1 60).  Taking 
these  examples  with  the  lengthened  discussions  in  St.  Paul  and 
St  James,  it  is  clear  that  attention  was  being  very  widely  drawn  to 
this  particular  text :  and  it  was  indeed  inevitable  that  it  should  be 
so  when  we  consider  the  place  which  Abraham  held  in  the  Jewish 
system  and  the  minute  study  which  was  being  given  to  every  part  of 
the  Pentateuch. 

It  might  therefore  be  contended  with  considerable  show  of  reason 


IV.  1-8.]  THE  FAITH  OF   ABRAHAM  lOj 

that  the  two  New  Testament  writers  are  discussing  independently 
of  each  other  a  current  problem,  and  that  there  is  no  ground  for 
supposing  a  controversial  relation  between  them.  We  are  not  sure 
that  we  are  prepared  to  go  quite  so  far  as  this.  It  is  true  that  the 
bearing  of  Gen.  xv.  6  was  a  subject  of  standing  debate  among  the 
Jews ;  but  the  same  thing  cannot  be  said  of  the  antithesis  of 
Faith  and  Works.  The  controversy  connected  with  this  was 
essentially  a  Christian  controversy  ;  it  had  its  origin  in  the  special 
and  characteristic  teaching  of  St.  Paul.  It  seems  to  us  therefore 
that  the  passages  in  the  two  Epistles  have  a  real  relation  to  that 
controversy,  and  so  at  least  indirectly  to  each  other. 

It  does  not  follow  that  the  relation  was  a  literary  relation.  We 
have  seen  that  there  are  strong  reasons  against  this  *.  We  do  not 
think  that  either  St.  Paul  had  seen  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  or 
St.  James  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul.  The  view  which  appears  to  us 
the  most  probable  is  that  the  argument  of  St.  James  is  directed  not 
against  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  or  against  him  in  person,  but 
against  hearsay  reports  of  his  teaching,  and  against  the  perverted 
construction  which  might  be  (and  perhaps  to  some  slight  extent 
actually  was)  put  upon  it.  As  St.  James  sate  in  his  place  in  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem,  as  yet  the  true  centre  and  metropolis  of 
the  Christian  world;  as  Christian  pilgrims  of  Jewish  birth  were 
constantly  coming  and  going  to  attend  the  great  yearly  feasts, 
especially  from  the  flourishing  Jewish  colonies  in  Asia  Minor  and 
Greece,  the  scene  of  St.  Paul's  labours ;  and  as  there  was  always 
at  his  elbow  the  little  coterie  of  St.  Paul's  fanatical  enemies,  it  would 
be  impossible  but  that  versions,  scarcely  ever  adequate  (for  how 
few  of  St.  Paul's  hearers  had  really  understood  him  I)  and  often  more 
or  less  seriously  distorted,  of  his  brother  Apostle's  teaching,  should 
reach  him.  He  did  what  a  wise  and  considerate  leader  would 
do.  He  names  no  names,  and  attacks  no  man's  person.  He  does 
not  assume  that  the  reports  which  he  has  heard  are  full  and  true 
reports.  At  the  same  time  he  states  in  plain  terms  his  own  view 
of  the  matter.  He  sounds  a  note  of  warning  which  seems  to  him 
to  be  needed,  and  which  the  very  language  of  St.  Paul,  in  places 
hke  Rom.  vi.  i  flf.,  15  if.,  shows  to  have  been  really  needed.  And 
thus,  as  so  often  in  Scripture,  two  complementary  sets  of  truths, 
suited  to  dififerent  types  of  mind  and  different  circumstances,  are 
stated  side  by  side.  We  have  at  once  the  deeper  principle  of 
action,  which  is  also  more  powerful  in  proportion  as  it  is  deeper, 
though  not  such  as  all  can  grasp  and  appropriate,  and  the  plainer 

•  Besides  what  it  laid  above,  see  Introduction  §  8.  It  is  a  satisfaction  to 
find  that  the  view  here  taken  is  substantially  that  of  Dr.  Hort,  Judatstic 
Christianity,  p.  148,  'it  seems  more  natural  to  suppose  that  a  misuse  ot 
misunderstanding  of  St  Paal's  teaching  on  the  part  of  others  gave  liae  to 
St  James's  care&ly  gsarded  langoage.' 


I06  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IV.  9-12. 

practical  teaching  pitched  on  a  more  every-day  level  and  appealing 
to  larger  numbers,  which  is  the  check  and  safeguard  against  possibla 
misconstruction. 


FAITH  AKD  CXRCTTMCIfilOH. 

IV.  9-12.  The  declaration  made  to  Abraham  did  not 
depend  upon  Circumcision,  For  it  was  made  before  he  was 
circumcised ;  and  Circumcision  only  came  in  after  the  fact, 
to  ratify  a  verdict  already  given.  The  reason  being  thai 
Abraham  might  have  for  his  spiritucd  descendants  the  un- 
circumcised  as  well  as  the  circumcised. 

•Here  we  have  certain  persons  pronounced  'happy.*  It 
this  then  to  be  confined  to  the  circumcised  Jew,  or  may  it  also 
apply  to  the  uncircumcised  Gentile  ?  Certainly  it  may.  For  there 
is  no  mention  of  circumcision.  It  is  his  faith  that  we  say  was 
credited  to  Abraham  as  righteousness.  **And  the  historical 
circumstances  of  the  case  prove  that  Circumcision  had  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  Was  Abraham  circumcised  when  the  declaration 
was  made  to  him  ?  No :  he  was  at  the  time  uncircumcised. 
"  And  circumcision  was  given  to  him  afterwards,  like  a  seal 
affixed  to  a  document,  to  authenticate  a  state  of  things  already 
existing,  via,  the  righteousness  based  on  faith  which  was  his  before 
he  was  circumcised.  The  reason  being  that  he  might  be  the 
spiritual  father  alike  of  two  divergent  classes  :  at  once  of  believing 
Gentiles,  who  though  uncircumcised  have  a  faith  like  his,  that  they 
too  might  be  credited  with  righteousness ;  *'*  and  at  the  same  time 
of  believing  Jews  who  do  not  depend  on  their  circumcision  only, 
but  whose  files  march  duly  in  the  steps  of  Abraham's  faith — that 
faith  which  was  his  before  his  circumcision. 

10.  Si.  Paul  appeals  to  the  historic  fact  that  the  Divine 
recognition  of  Abraham's  faith  came  in  order  of  time  before  his 
circumcision :  the  one  recorded  in  Gen.  xv.  6,  the  other  in 
Gen.  xvii.  lo  ff.  Therefore  although  it  might  be  (and  was) 
confirmed  by  circumcision,  it  could  not  be  due  to  it  or  conditioned 
by  it 

XL  mi^tor  vcpi-rofti)).  Circumcision  at  its  institution  is  said  lo 
be   o*    trnpnif   haBlveitf  (Gen.   xvii.    ii),   between   God   and  the 


IV.  U.J  THE   FAITH   OF   ABRAHAM  lOj 

circumcised.  The  gen.  ntpirofxris  is  a  genitive  of  apposition  or  identity, 
a  sign  '  consisting  in  circumcision/  '  which  was  circumcision.'  Some 
authorities  (AC*  al.)  read  nfpiTo^rjv. 

v^payiSa.  The  prayer  pronounced  at  the  circumcising  of 
a  child  runs  thus :  '  Blessed  be  He  who  sanctified  His  beloved 
from  the  womb,  and  put  His  ordinance  upon  His  flesh,  and  sealed 
His  oflfspring  with  the  sign  of  a  holy  covenant.'  Com  p.  Targum 
Can/,  iii.  8  '  The  seal  of  circumcision  is  in  your  flesh  as  it  was 
sealed  in  the  flesh  of  Abraham';  Shemoth  R.  19  'Ye  shall  not  eat 
of  the  passover  unless  the  seal  of  Abraham  be  in  your  flesh.' 
Many  other  parallels  will  be  found  in  Wetstein  ad  loc.  (cf.  also 
Delitzsch). 

At  a  very  early  date  the  same  term  trcfipayit  was  transferred  from 
the  rite  of  circumcision  to  Christian  baptism.  See  the  passages 
collected  by  Lightfoot  on  2  Clem.  vii.  6  {Clem.  Rom.  ii.  226),  also 
Gebhardt  and  Harnack  ad  loc,  and  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures, 
p.  295.  Dr.  Hatch  connects  the  use  of  the  term  with  *  the 
mysteries  and  some  forms  of  foreign  cult ' ;  and  it  may  have 
coalesced  with  language  borrowed  from  these ;  but  in  its  origin  it 
appears  to  be  Jewish.  A  similar  view  is  taken  by  Anrich,  Das 
antike  Myskrienwesen  in  seinem  Einfluss  auf  das  Christentum 
(Gdttingen,  1894),  p.  120  if.,  where  the  Christian  use  of  the  word 
a^payii  is  fuUy  discussed. 

Barnabas  (ix.  6)  seems  to  refer  to,  and  refnte,  the  Jewish  doctrine  which 
he  puts  in  the  month  of  an  objector :  dXA'  ipitr  Kat  yLr]v  jrtpiTtV^T/Tcu  b 
yjoAt  fk  fftppnyiSa.  dW6,  vas  ^vpos  ical  'Apaifi  ical  navres  oi  lepus  rSiv  tiSwKuy. 
ipa  oZv  icaKUvot  in  riji  SiaOrjKTjs  avruiv  daiv  ;  dA.A<i  Kal  oi  Alyvirriot  it'  ntpi- 
roufi  tlolv.  The  fact  that  so  many  heathen  nations  were  circumcised  proved 
that  circnmcision  could  not  be  the  seal  of  a  special  covenant 

els  tA  *lvu,  K.T.X.  Even  circumcision,  the  strongest  mark  of 
Jewish  separation,  in  St.  Paul's  view  looked  beyond  its  immediate 
exclusiveness  to  an  ultimate  inclusion  of  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews. 
It  was  nothing  more  than  a  ratification  of  Abraham's  faith.  Faith 
was  the  real  motive  power ;  and  as  applied  to  the  present  condition 
of  things,  Abraham's  faith  in  the  promise  had  its  counterpart  in  the 
Christian's  faith  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  (i.  e.  in  Christ). 
Thus  a  new  division  was  made.  The  true  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham were  not  so  much  those  who  imitated  his  circumcision  (i.  e. 
all  Jews  whether  believing  or  not),  but  those  who  imitated  his 
faith  (i.  e.  believing  Jews  and  believing  Gentiles),  tls  t6  denotes 
that  all  this  was  contemplated  in  the  Divine  purpose. 

irarepa  -ndvTotv  tui»  wiorcookTui'.  Delitzsch  [ad  loc.)  quotes  one 
of  the  prayers  for  the  Day  of  Atonement  in  which  Abraham  is 
called  '  the  first  of  my  faithful  ones.'  He  also  adduces  a  passage, 
Jerus.  Gemara  on  Biccurim,  i.  1,  in  which  it  is  proved  that  even 
the   proselyte   may  claim   the  patriarchs  as  his  \3^I}^3K  because 


108  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IV.  U,  12 

Abram  became  Abraham,  '  father  of  many  nations,'  lit  '  a  great 
multitude ' ;  *  he  was  so,'  the  Glossator  adds,  '  because  he  taught 
them  to  believe.' 

Si*  dKpo^uoTias :  '  though  in  a  state  of  uncircumcision/  Aui  of 
attendant  circumstances  as  in  dih  ypaiifiaros  km  irtfHTOfiijs  ii.  27,  ry 
iia  7TpoaK6fifiaTOS  (adiopTi  xiv.  ao. 

12.  Tois  oToixouai.  As  it  stands  the  art.  is  a  solecism :  it  would 
make  those  who  are  circumcised  one  set  of  persons,  and  those  who 
follow  the  example  of  Abraham's  faith  another  distinct  set,  which 
is  certainly  not  St.  Paul's  meaning.  He  is  speaking  of  Jews  who 
are  io/A  circumcised  and  believe.  This  requires  in  Greek  the 
omission  of  the  art.  before  vroixovtriy.  But  tois  or.  is  found  in  all 
existing  MSS.  We  must  suppose  therefore  either  (i)  that  there 
has  been  some  corruption.  WH.  think  that  rolt  may  be  the 
remains  of  an  original  airols :  but  that  would  not  seem  to  be  a  very 
natural  form  of  sentence.  Or  (2)  we  may  think  that  Tertius  made 
a  slip  of  the  pen  in  following  St.  Paul's  dictation,  and  that  this 
remained  uncorrected.  If  the  slip  was  not  made  by  Tertius 
himself,  it  must  have  been  made  in  some  very  early  copy,  the 
parent  of  all  our  present  copies. 

<rroixoG<n.  a-roixfly  is  a  well-known  military  term,  meaning 
strictly  to  '  march  in  file ' :  Pollux  viii.  9  t6  ii  ^d0os  vrolxpt  KoXeiTOi, 

KoL  t6  fiiv  t(f)(^s  tivai  Kara  firJKos  (vydv'  t6  di  t(f)t^s  Karii  ^ddos  a-Toi\tt», 

'  the  technical  term  for  marching  abreast  is  (vytlv,  for  marching  in 
depth  or  in  file,  aroixt'iv '  (Wets.). 

On  ov  |i6vov  rather  than  /i^  fM$ror  in  thii  ren*  and  In  Tcr.  16  tee  Barton, 
M.mmdT.i  481. 


Jewish  Teaching  on  Circumcisum. 

The  fierce  fanaticism  with  which  the  Jews  insisted  upon  the  rite 
of  Circumcision  is  vividly  brought  out  in  the  Book  0/  Jubilees 
(xv.  15  if.) :  '  This  law  is  for  all  generations  for  ever,  and  there  is 
no  circumcision  of  the  time,  and  no  passing  over  one  day  out  of 
the  eight  days ;  for  it  is  an  eternal  ordinance,  ordained  and  written 
on  the  heavenly  tables.  And  every  one  that  is  bom,  the  flesh  of 
whose  foreskin  is  not  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  belongs  not  to 
the  children  of  the  covenant  which  the  Lord  made  with  Abraham, 
for  he  belongs  to  the  children  of  destruction ;  nor  is  there  moreover 
any  sign  on  him  that  he  is  the  Lord's,  but  (he  is  destined)  to  be 
destroyed  and  slain  from  the  earth,  and  to  be  rooted  out  of  the 
earth,  for  he  has  broken  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  our  God.  .  . 
And  now  I  will  announce  unto  thee  that  the  children  of  Israel  will 
not  keep  true  to  this  ordinance,  and  they  will  not  circumcise  their 
sons  according  to  all  this  law ;  for  in  the  flesh  of  their  circumcision 


tV.  18-17.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  IO9 

they  will  omit  this  circumcision  of  their  sons,  and  all  of  them,  sona 
of  Belial,  will  have  their  sons  uncircumcised  as  they  were  born. 
And  there  shall  be  great  wrath  from  the  Lord  against  the  children 
of  Israel,  because  they  have  forsaken  His  covenant  and  turned  away 
from  His  word,  and  provoked  and  blasphemed,  according  as  they 
have  not  observed  the  ordinance  of  this  law ;  for  they  treat  their 
members  like  the  Gentiles,  so  that  they  may  be  removed  and  rooted 
out  of  the  land.  And  there  will  be  no  pardon  or  forgiveness  for 
them,  so  that  there  should  be  pardon  and  release  from  all  the  sin 
of  this  error  for  ever.' 

So  absolute  is  Circumcision  as  a  mark  of  God's  favour  that  if  an 
Israelite  has  practised  idolatry  his  circumcision  must  first  be 
removed  before  he  can  go  down  to  Gehenna  (Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol. 
p.  51  f.).  When  Abraham  was  circumcised  God  Himself  took 
a  part  in  the  act  {ibid.  p.  353).  It  was  his  circumcision  and  antici- 
patory fulfilment  of  the  Law  which  qualified  Abraham  to  be  the 
'  father  of  many  nations '  {ibid.  p.  256).  Indeed  it  was  just  through 
his  circumcision  that  Isaac  was  born  of  a  '  holy  seed.'  This  was 
the  current  doctrine.  And  it  was  at  the  root  of  it  that  St  Paul 
strikes  by  showing  that  Faith  was  prior  to  Circumcision,  that  the 
latter  was  wholly  subordinate  to  the  former,  and  that  just  those 
privileges  and  promises  which  the  Jew  connected  with  Circumcision 
were  really  due  to  Faith. 


PBOMISE  hSTD  LAW. 

IV.  18-17.  Again  the  declaration  that  was  made  to 
Abraham  had  nothing  to  do  with  Law.  For  it  turned  on 
Faith  and  Promise  which  are  the  very  antithesis  of  Law. 
The  reason  being  that  Abraham  might  be  the  spiritual 
father  of  all  believers.  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews^  and  that 
Gentiles  might  have  an  equal  claim  to  the  Promise. 

^*  Another  proof  that  Gentiles  were  contemplated  as  well  as  Jews. 
The  promise  made  to  Abraham  and  his  descendants  of  world-wide 
Messianic  rule,  as  it  was  not  dependent  upon  Circumcision,  so  also 
was  !M)t  dependent  upon  Law,  but  on  a  righteousness  which  was 
the  product  of  Faith.  **If  this  world-wide  inheritance  really 
depended  upon  any  legal  system,  and  if  it  was  limited  to  those  who 
were  under  such  a  system,  there  would  be  no  place  left  for  Faith 
or  Promise :  Faith  were  an  empty  name  and  Promise  a  dead  letter. 
^Tor  Law  is  in  its  effect*  the  very  opposite  of  Promise.    It  only 


I  lO  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IV.  18 

serves  to  bring  down  God's  wrath  by  enhancing  the  guiU  of  sin. 
Where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression,  which  implies 
a  law  to  be  transgressed.  Law  and  Promise  therefore  are  mutually 
exclusive;  the  one  brings  death,  the  other  life.  "Hence  it  is  that 
the  Divine  plan  was  made  to  turn,  not  on  Law  and  obedience  to 
Law,  but  on  Faith.  For  faith  on  man's  side  implies  Grace,  or  free 
favour,  on  the  side  of  God.  So  that  the  Promise  depending  as  it 
did  not  on  Law  but  on  these  broad  conditions,  Faith  and  Grace, 
might  hold  good  equally  for  all  Abraham's  descendants — not  only 
for  those  who  came  under  the  Mosaic  Law,  but  for  all  who  could 
lay  claim  to  a  faith  like  his.  ^'Thus  Abraham  is  the  true  ancestor 
of  all  Christians  (v^f),  as  it  is  expressly  stated  in  Gen.  xvii.  5 
'A  father'  (i.e.  in  spiritual  fatherhood)  'of  many  nations  have 
I  made  thee  *.' 

13-17.  In  this  section  St.  Paul  brings  up  the  key-words  of  his 
own  system  Faith,  Promise,  Grace,  and  marshals  them  in  array 
over  against  the  leading  points  in  the  current  theology  of  the 
Jews — Law,  Works  or  performance  of  Law,  Merit.  Because  the 
working  of  this  latter  system  had  been  so  disastrous,  ending  only 
in  condemnation,  it  was  a  relief  to  find  that  it  was  not  what  God 
had  really  intended,  but  that  the  true  principles  of  things  held  out 
a  prospect  so  much  brighter  and  more  hopeful,  and  one  which 
furnished  such  abundant  justification  for  all  that  seemed  new  in 
Christianity. 

13.  ov  ydp,  K.T.X.  The  immediate  point  which  this  paragraph 
is  introduced  to  prove  is  that  Abraham  might  be,  in  a  true  though 
spiritual  sense,  the  father  of  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  The  ulterior 
object  of  the  whole  argument  is  to  show  that  Abraham  himself 
is  rightly  claimed  not  as  the  Jews  contended  by  themselves  but 
by  Christians. 

81A  fofiou :  without  art.,  any  system  of  law. 

Vj  ^TrayYcXia :  see  on  ch.  i.  a  (npotnTfyyiiXaTo),  where  the  uses  of 
the  word  and  its  place  in  Christian  teaching  are  discussed.  At  the 
time  of  the  Coming  of  Christ  the  attention  of  the  whole  Jewish  race 
was  turned  to  the  promises  contained  in  the  O.  T. ;  and  in 
Christianity  these  promises  were  (so  to  speak)  brought  to  a  head 
and  definitely  identified  with  their  fulfilment 

The  following  examples  may  be  added  to  those  qnoted  on  ch.  L  t  to 
illnstrate  the  diffusion  of  this  idea  of  *  Promise '  among  the  Jews  in  the  firrt 
centary  a.d.  :   4  Ezra  It.  37  rum  capiet  portan  quae  in  temporibus  iustis 

*  There  is  a  slight  awkwardness  in  making  oar  break  in  the  middle  ol 
a  verse  and  of  a  sentence.  St.  Paal  glides  after  his  manner  into  a  new  subject, 
««ggested  to  him  by  the  verce  which  he  quotes  in  proof  of  what  has  gone  befoie 


THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  III 

yepromissa  sunt ;  vii.  14  si  ergo  non  ingredientes  Ingres  si  fuerint  qui  vivunt 
angusfa  et  vana  haec,  non  poterunt  recipere  quae  sunt  reposita  (  =  rcfc  htto- 
Ke(tt6va  Gen.  xlix.  10);  ibid.  49  (119)  ff.  quid  enim  nobis  prodest  si  pro- 
mi  sstim  est  nobis  immortale  tempus^  nos  vero  mortalia  opera  egimus?  &c. 
Apoc.  Baruch.  xiv.  I'i propter  hoc  etiam  ipsi  sine  titnore  relinquunt  mun- 
diiin  istum,  et  fidenies  in  laetitia  speratit  se  recepturos  mundum  quern  pro- 
misisti  eis.  It  will  be  observed  that  all  these  passages  are  apocalyptic  and 
eschatological.  The  Jewish  idea  of  Promise  is  vague  and  future;  the  Chris- 
tian idea  is  definite  and  associated  with  a  state  of  things  already  inaugurated. 

TO  kXt]poi'($p,oi'  oMthv  etcoi  K^cfiou.  What  Promise  is  this?  There 
is  none  in  these  words.  Hence  (i)  some  think  that  it  means  the 
possession  of  the  Land  of  Canaan  (Gen.  xii.  7  ;  xiii.  14  f. ;  xv.  18 ; 
xvii.  8 ;  cf.  xxvi,  3 ;  Ex.  vi.  4)  taken  as  a  type  of  the  world-wide 
Messianic  reign;  (a)  others  think  that  it  must  refer  to  the  particular 
promise  faith  in  which  called  down  the  Divine  blessing — that 
A.  should  have  a  son  and  descendants  like  the  stars  of  heaven. 
Probably  this  is  meant  in  the  first  instance,  but  the  whole  series 
of  promises  goes  together  and  it  is  implied  (i)  that  A.  should  have 
a  son ;  (ii)  that  this  son  should  have  numerous  descendants ; 
(iii)  that  in  One  of  those  descendants  the  whole  world  should  be 
blessed  ;  (iv)  that  through  Him  A.'s  seed  should  enjoy  world-wide 
dominion. 

8id  SiKaioffunfis  irioTcus :  this  '  faith-righteousness '  which  St 
Paul  has  been  describing  as  characteristic  of  the  Christian,  and 
before  him  of  Abraham. 

14.  01  ^K  »'<$|xou:  'the  dependants  of  law/  'vassals  of  a  legal  system/ 
such  as  were  the  Jews. 

itXT)poK<5jioi.  If  the  right  to  that  universal  dominion  which  will 
belong  to  the  Messiah  and  His  people  is  confined  to  those  who  are 
subject  to  a  law,  like  that  of  Moses,  what  can  it  have  to  do  either 
with  the  Promise  originally  given  to  Abraham,  or  with  Faith  to 
which  that  Promise  was  annexed  ?  In  that  case  Faith  and  Promise 
would  be  pushed  aside  and  cancelled  altogether.  But  they  cannot 
be  cancelled  ;  and  therefore  the  inheritance  must  depend  upon  them 
and  not  upon  Law. 

16.  This  verse  is  parenthetic,  proving  that  Law  and  Promise 
cannot  exist  and  be  in  force  side  by  side.  They  are  too  much 
opposed  in  their  effects  and  operation.  Law  presents  itself  to 
St.  Paul  chiefly  in  this  hght  as  entailing  punishment.  It  increases 
the  guilt  of  sin.  So  long  as  there  is  no  commandment,  the  wrong 
act  is  done  as  it  were  accidentally  and  unconsciously ;  it  cannot  be 
called  by  the  name  of  transgression.  The  direct  breach  of  a  known 
law  is  a  far  more  heinous  matter.  On  this  disastrous  effect  of  Law 
see  iii.  ao,  v.  13,  ao,  vii.  7  fF. 

15.  o5  5e  for  a%  ydp  is  decisively  attested  (i<  A  B  C  &c.). 

wopdpaais    is  the  appropriate  word  for  the  direct  violation  of 


112  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS 

a  code.  It  means  to  overstep  a  line  clearly  defined  :  peccare  est 
transilire  lineas  Cicero,  Farad.  3  (op.  Trench,  Syn.  p.  236). 

16.  Ik  -irio-Teus.  In  his  rapid  and  vigorous  reasoning  St.  Paul 
contents  himself  with  a  few  bold  strokes,  which  he  leaves  it  to  the 
reader  to  fill  in.      It  is  usual  to  supply  wiih  «'«  nitrrtaf   either 

if  Kkr)povofiia   iarlv  from  V,  1 4  (LipS.  Mey.)  or  if  inayyeKia  icrriv   from 

V.  13  (Fri.),  but  as  Tr)v  inayytXiav  is  defined  just  below  it  seems 
better  to  have  recourse  to  some  wider  thought  which  shall  include 
both  these.  'It  was'='The  Divine  plan  was,  took  its  start,  from 
faith,'  The  bold  lines  of  God's  plan,  the  Providendal  ordering 
of  things,  form  the  background,  understood  if  not  directly  expressed, 
to  the  whole  chapter. 

els  t4  elcoi.  Working  round  again  to  the  same  conclusion  as 
before ;  the  object  of  all  these  pre-arranged  conditions  was  to  do 
away  with  old  restrictions,  and  to  throw  open  the  Messianic 
blessings  to  all  who  in  any  true  sense  could  call  Abraham  'father, 
i.e.  to  believing  Gentile  as  well  as  to  believing  Jew. 


ABBAHAM'S  FAITH  A  TYPE  OP  THB  CHBISTIAlTa. 

IV.  17-22.  Abraham  s  Faith  was  remarkable  both  for  its 
strength  and  for  its  object :  the  birth  of  Isaac  in  which 
Abraham  believed  might  be  described  as  a  '  birth  from  the 
dead' 

23-25.  In  this  it  is  a  type  of  the  Christian's  Faith,  te 
which  is  annexed  a  like  acceptance  and  which  also  has  for 
its  object  a  '  birth  from  the  dead ' — ^4^  Death  and  Resur- 
rection  of  Christ. 

"In  this  light  Abraham  is  regarded  by  God  before  whom  he  is 
lepresented  as  standing — that  God  who  infuses  life  into  the  dead 
(as  He  was  about  to  infuse  it  into  Abraham's  dead  body),  and 
who  issues  His  summons  (as  He  issued  it  then)  to  generations 
yet  unborn. 

"  In  such  a  God  Abraham  believed.  Against  all  ordinary  hope 
of  becoming  a  father  he  yet  had  faith,  grounded  in  hope,  and 
enabling  him  to  become  the  father  not  of  Jews  only  but  of  wide- 
spread nations,  to  whom  the  Promise  alluded  when  it  said  (Gen. 
XV.  5 )  '  Like  the  stars  of  the  heaven  shall  thy  descendants  be.' 

'"Without  showing  weakness  in  his  faith,  he  took  full  note 
of  the  fact  that  at  his  advanced  years  (for  he  was  now  about 
a  hundred  years  old)  his  own  vital  powers  were  decayed ;  be  took 


IV.  17.]  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  IIJ 

fun  note  of  the  barrenness  of  Sarah  his  wife ;  ''and  yet  with  the 
promise  in  view  no  impulse  of  unbelief  made  him  hesitate;  hii 
faith  endowed  him  with  the  power  which  he  seemed  to  lack;  he 
gave  praise  to  God  for  the  miracle  that  was  to  be  wrought  in  him, 
^'having  a  firm  conviction  that  what  God  had  promised  He  was 
able  also  to  perform.  "And  for  this  reason  that  faith  of  his  was 
credited  to  him  as  righteousness. 

'*Now  when  all  this  was  recorded  in  Scripture,  it  was  not 
Abraham  alone  who  was  in  view  •*but  we  too — the  future 
generations  of  Christians,  who  will  find  a  like  acceptance,  as  we 
have  a  like  faith.  Abraham  believed  on  Him  who  caused  the  birth 
of  Isaac  from  elements  that  seemed  as  good  as  dead :  and  we  too 
believe  on  the  same  God  who  raised  up  from  the  dead  Jesus  our 
Lord,  *  who  was  delivered  into  the  hands  of  His  murderers  to  atone 
for  our  sins,  and  rose  again  to  effect  our  justification  (i.e.  to  put 
the  crown  and  seal  to  the  Atonement  wrought  by  His  Death,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  evoke  the  faith  which  makes  the  Atonement 
effectual). 

17.  TTttT^po,  m.TX  Exactly  from  LXX  of  Gen.  xvii.  5.  The  LXX 
tones  down  somewhat  the  strongly  figurative  expression  of  the 
Heb.,  patrem  fremtntu  iurbae,  i.  e.  ingentit  multiiudims  populorum 
(Kautzsch,  p.  S5). 

naWKam  ou  kv\.a^%v9%  QcoG :  attraction  for  utrivavTi  6rav  ^  fV/- 
crrwcr* :  Korivavn  describing  the  posture  in  which  Abraham  is 
represented  as  holding  colloquy  with  God  (Gen.  xvii.  i  ff.). 

(tKnroiourros :  '  maketh  alive.  St.  Paul  has  in  his  mind  the  two 
acts  which  he  compares  and  which  are  both  embraced  under  this 
word,  (i)  the  Birth  of  Isaac,  (2)  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  On 
the  Hellenistic  use  of  the  word  see  Hatch,  Ess.  in  Bibl.  Greek,  p.  5. 

KoXouKTos  \Ta.  \ir]  5vTa  wt  ivra].  There  are  four  views :  (i)  KaX.s 
*to  name,  speak  of,  or  describe,  things  non-existent  as  if  they 
existed'  (Va.);  (ii)  =  'to  call  into  being,  issue  His  creative  fiat'  (most 
commentators);  (iii)  =  'to  call,  or  summon,' '  issue  His  commands 
to '  (Mey.  Gif ) ;  (iv)  in  the  dogmatic  sense  a=  '  to  call,  or  invite  to 
life  and  salvation '  (Fri.).  Of  tibese  (iv)  may  be  put  on  one  side  as 
too  remote  from  the  context ;  and  (ii)  as  Mey.  rightly  points  out, 
seems  to  be  negatived  by  «»  Srra.  The  choice  remains  between 
(i)  and  (iii).  If  the  former  seems  the  simplest,  the  latter  is  the 
more  forcible  rendering,  and  as  such  more  in  keeping  with  the 
imaginative  grasp  of  the  situation  displayed  by  St.  Paul.  In  favour 
of  this  view  may  also  be  quoted  Apoc.  Bar.  xxi,  4  O  qui  fecisH 
Urram  audi  wu  .  ,  ,  qui  voceuti  ab  initio  mundi  quod  nondum  erat,  el 


114  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [TV.  17  SCV 

obediunt  ftbi.     For  the  nae  of  oXciy  see  also  the  note  on  is.  ) 

below. 

18.  cifi  T&  ycr^aOai  =  i<m  ym<r€m :  '  his  faith  enabled  him  to 
become  the  father/  but  with  the  underlying  idea  that  his  faith  in 
this  was  but  carrying  out  the  great  Divine  purpose  which  ordered 
all  these  events. 

oJtws  loToi :  =  Gen.  xv.  5  (LXX). 

19.  |it\  d<rd(VT|(ras.  Comp.  Lft.  in  Jtmm.  tf  Class,  mud  Sme.  PMM. 
m.  106  n. :  'The  New  Testament  use  of  fxri  with  a  participle  .  .  .  has  a  mach 
wider  range  than  in  the  earlier  language.  Yet  this  is  no  violation  <A 
principle,  but  rather  an  extension  of  a  particular  mode  erf  looking  at  the 
subordinate  event  contained  in  the  participial  clause.  It  it  viewed  as  an 
accident  or  condition  of  the  principal  event  described  by  the  finite  verb,  and 
is  therefore  negatived  by  the  dependent  negative  /«ij  and  not  by  the  absolute  oi. 
Rom.  iv.  19  ...  is  a  case  in  point  whether  wc  retain  ov  or  omit  it  with 
Lachm.  In  the  latter  case  the  sense  will  be,  "he  so  considered  his  own 
body  now  dead,  ms  n*t  to  U  weak  in  the  (?)  faith." '  This  is  well  expressed 
in  RV.  '  without  bting  weakened,'  except  that  '  being  weakened '  should  be 
rather  '  showing  weakness '  or  '  becoming  weak.'     See  also  Burton,  M.  trnd  T. 

KOT€»'6r]<r«  M  A  B  C  some  good  cursives,  some  MSS.  of  Vulg. 

(including  am),  Pesh.  Boh.,  Orig.-laL  (which  probably  here  preserves 
Origen's  Greek),  Chrys.  and  others ;  oi  Kar«vo'i;(r«  D  E  F  G  K  L  P 
&c.,  some  MSS.  of  Vulg.  (including y?</</,  though  it  is  more  pro- 
bable that  the  negative  has  come  in  from  the  Old  Latin  and  that 
it  was  not  recognized  by  Jerome),  Syr.-HarcL,  Orig.-lat  bis,  Epiph. 
Ambrstr.  al. 

Both  readings  give  a  good  sense :  KaTwv6ri<Tr, '  he  did  consider,  and 
ye/  did  not  doubt' ;  ov  KaTtvorjat,  '  he  did  no/  consider,  and  therefort 
did  not  doubt.'  Both  readings  are  also  early:  but  the  negative 
ov  KUTtvoTia-f  is  clearly  of  Western  origin,  and  must  probably  be  set 
down  to  Western  laxity :  the  authorities  which  omit  the  negative 
are  as  a  rule  the  most  trustworthy. 

^irdpxcdv:  'being  already  about  a  hundred  years  old.'  May  we  not  >ay 
Aat  tXvok  denotes  a  present  state  simply  as  present,  but  that  iiTrd/>x<i>'  denotes 
•  present  state  as  a  product  of  past  states,  or  at  least  a  state  in  present  time 
as  related  to  past  time  ('  vorhandenstin,  dastin,  Lat.  *xisttre,  adess«,Pratst4 
4SU '  Schmidt  1 1  See  esp.  T.  S.  Evans  in  Sp.  Comm.  on  i  Cor.  vii.  30  :  '  the 
last  word  {{nTapxtw)  is  difficult ;  it  seems  to  mean  sometimes  "  to  be  origin- 
ally," "to  be  substantially  or  fundamentally,"  or,  as  in  Demosthenes,  "to  be 
stored  in  readiness. "  An  idea  of  propriety  sometimes  attaches  to  it :  comp. 
'"'Pf '»!  "  property  "  or  "  substance."  The  word  however  asks  for  further 
investigation.'     Comp.  Schmidt,  IxU.  u.  gr.  Synonymik,  %  74.  4. 

20.  ovi  8i«Kp(dT) :  '  did  not  hesitate '  (rovriaTw  ou8<  ivtZoicustr  oiSJ  ^fPi" 
fia\t  Chrys.).  diaKpirttr  act.  ^diiuduart,  (i)  to  '  discriminate,'  or  '  distinguish ' 
between  two  things  vMatt.  xvi.  3  ;  cf .  i  Cor.  xL  39,  31 )  or  persons  (Acts  xv.  9; 
1  Cor.  iv.  7);  ii)  to  'arbitiate'  between  two  parties  (i  Cor.  vi.  51.  tut- 
Mfiv*a6cu  mid.  (and  pasa.)  •«  ^i)  'to  get  a  decision,"  litigate,"  '  dispute,' oe 
'contend '  (Acts  xi.  2  ;  Jas.  ii.  4 ;  Jude  91 ;  (ii '  to  'be  divided  against  one- 
•elf,'  'waver,'  'doubt."  The  other  senses  are  all  found  in  LXX  (where  the 
w«ttl  occurs  some  thirty  times),  bat  tliia  is  wanting.     It  k  bowerec  well 


IV.  20.J  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  II5 

established  for  N.T^  where  it  Appears  as  the  proper  opposite  of  wltnu 
wiartvct.  So  Matt,  xxt  ai  iiy  txT^*  '^tic,  Koi  nil  hiaKpiOrJTf  :  Mark  xi.  33  tt 
kf  flrg  , . .  Koi  fii)  S*aHpi6^  If  rp  aapd'uf  airrov  dKXd  wiartvp  :  Rom.  xiy.  33  d  S) 
lkaicptv6fityoi,  Wv  <payi,  MarcuciicpiTai,  3t«  ovx  i)t  nltrrtwt :  Jas.  1.  6  alrdrw  Hi 
iy  w'uTTu  ixT)S(y  iiaj(piv6fuyot :  also  probably  Jnde  3 a.  A  like  nse  is  found  in 
Christian  writings  of  the  second  century  and  later:  e.g.  Protev.  Joe.  11 
iucovaaaa  i\  Maptcifi  SuKpiOrj  iy  iavr^  \iyovaa,  k.t.K  (quoted  by  Mayor  on 
las.  i.  6)  :  Clem.  Homil.  i.  30  7rc/>i  r^t  itapaZo9i\.aj)i  aa  dKrjOdas  ^taKpiOrjaji : 
U.  40  *tpi  Tov  fiovov  Kal  ayadov  9(oS  StoKpid^vai.  It  is  remarkable  that  a  nse 
which  (except  as  an  antithesis  to  wiffrtitiy)  there  is  no  reason  to  connect 
specially  with  Christianity  should  thus  seem  to  be  traceable  to  Christian 
circles  and  the  Christian  line  of  tradition.  It  is  not  likely  to  be  in  the  strict 
sense  a  Christian  coinage,  bat  appears  to  have  had  its  beginning  in  near 

Jroiimity  to  Christianity.     A  parallel  case  is  that  of  the  word  Si^x"*  (St. 
ames,  Clem.  Rom.,  Herm.,  DidatJk/,  &&).    The  two  words  seem  to  belong 
to  the  same  cycle  of  ideas. 

lKcSuKap.(26i)  rg  wiorci.  rg  frtdrrft  is  here  usually  taken  as  dat.  of 
respect,  'he  was  strengthened  in  his  faith,'  i.e.  'his  faith  was 
strengthened,  or  confirmed.'  In  favour  of  this  would  be  n^  dadevrja-as 
Tji  niarti  above ;  and  the  surrounding  terms  (8i.tKpiBi),  n\f}po(f)opri6fis} 
might  seem  to  point  to  a  mental  process.  But  it  is  tempting  to 
make  rj  wiarti  instrumental  or  causal,  like  rg  anurritf  to  which  it 
stands  in  immediate  antithesis :  <Vcd.  r^  n-tW.  would  then  s  '  he  was 
endowed  with  power  by  means  of  his  faith'  (sc.  ri  vfvtKp»ftivov 
avTov  aifia  iveivvapicodr]).  According  to  the  Talmud,  Abraham  wurde 
in  seiner  Natur  erneueri,  eine  neue  Creatur  {Bammidbar  Rabba  xi), 
um  die  Zeugung  tu  vollbringen  (Weber,  p.  256).  And  we  can 
hardly  doubt  that  the  passage  was  taken  in  this  way  by  the  author 
of  Heb.,  who  appears  to  have  had  it  directly  in  mind :  comp.  Heb, 

XI.  II,  I  a  itiartt,  tun  avrr\  'Sdppa  dvvafup  tis  KaTofioXrjy  OTrtpparos  tXa^f 
ml  irapa  Kaiphy  rjXiKtai  .  .  .  dio  icdi  d<f>'  (v^r  eytyvfjdrfaav,  Koi  ravra 
PtptKpafxivov,  Kodois  ra  aarpa  tov  oipavov  tw  tr\T)6ei  (observe  esp.  bvyafuy 

IXajSf,  ytvtKpa^Uyov).     This  sense   is  also  distinctly  recognized  by 

£uthym.-Zig.  {ivthvyanmSr}  «lt  naiBoyovlay  t^  »r»<rr«i"   ^  fvedwcmatOr) 

wpos  rrip  niorip).  The  Other  (common)  interpretation  is  preferred  by 
Chrys.,  from  whom  £uthym.-Zig.  seems  to  get  his  i  vt<rru> 
hnbtian/pfvos  8vvdfM«»t  itirat  wktinvot. 

The  Talmud  lays  great  stress  on  the  Birth  of  Isaac.  In  the 
name  of  Isaac  was  found  an  indication  that  with  him  the  history 
of  Revelation  began.  With  him  the  people  of  revealed  Religion 
came  into  existence :  with  him  '  the  Holy  One  began  to  work 
wonders'  {Beresh.  Rabba  liii,  ap.  Weber,  Altsyn.  Theol.  p.  256). 
But  it  is  of  course  a  wholly  new  point  when  St.  Paul  compares  the 
miraculous  birth  of  Isaac  with  the  raising  of  Christ  from  the  dead. 
The  parallel  consists  not  only  in  the  nature  of  the  two  events — 
both  a  bringing  to  life  from  cmiditions  which  betokened  only 
death — but  also  in  the  faith  of  which  they  were  the  object. 

Sod«  %ii%w.  a  Hebraism:  cf.  Josh.  viL  19;  i  Sam.  vi.  5;  1 
Chron.  xvi  %%,  &c. 


Il6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  (IV.  Bl-Sft. 

21.  -irXt|po^opi|9eis:  wKt}po<f>opla  s ' full  assurance/ '  firm  conviction, 
I  Thess.  i.  5 ;  Col.  ii.  a ;  a  word  especially  common  amongst  the 
Stoics.  Hence  iT\r)po(f)op('i<TOai,  as  used  of  persons,  =  *  to  be  fully 
assured  or  convinced/  as  here,  ch.  xiv.  5 ;  Col.  iv.  i  a.  As  used  of 
things  the  meaning  is  more  doubtful :  cf.  a  Tim.  iv.  5,  1 7  and 
Luke  i.  I,  where  some  take  it  as  =  'fully  or  satisfactorily  proved/ 
others  as  =  '  accomplished '  (so  Lat.-Vet.  Vulg.  RV.  Ux/  Lft.  On 
Revision,  p.  14a) :  see  note  ad  he. 

23.  8i'  outAk  fi^KOK.  Beresh.  R.  xl.  8  'Thou  findest  that  aU 
that  is  recorded  of  Abraham  is  repeated  in  the  history  of  his 
children '  (Wetstein,  who  is  followed  by  Meyer,  and  Delitzsch  <k/ /w.). 
Wetstein  also  quotes  Taanith  ii.  i  Frairts  nostri,  de  Nintoitis 
non  dictum  est:  et  respexit  Deus  saccum  eorum. 

24.  Tois  -iricTTcuouaii' :  '  to  us  who  believe.'  St.  Paul  asserts  that 
his  readers  are  among  the  class  of  believers.  Not '  if  we  belicYc/ 
which  would  be  ■Kiurdimxrw  {tiru  artic). 

25.  810  with  ace.  is  primarily  retrospective, =' because  of:  but 
inasmuch  as  the  idea  or  motive  precedes  the  execution,  bta  may  be 
retrospective  with  reference  to  the  idea,  but  prospective  with 
reference  to  the  execution.  Which  it  is  in  any  particular  case  must 
be  determined  by  the  context. 

Here  81A  to  napairr.  may  be  retrospective,  =  *  because  of  our 
trespasses '  (which  made  the  death  of  Christ  necessary) ;  or  it  may 
>>e  prospective,  as  Gif.  'because  of  our  trespasses/  i.e.  'in  order  tc 
atone  for  them.' 

In  any  case  3uk  t^v  {tiKaimviv  is  prospective,  *  with  a  view  to  our 
justification/  '  because  of  our  justification '  conceived  as  a  motive, 
i.  e.  to  bring  it  about.  See  Dr.  Gifford's  two  excellent  notes 
pp.  108,  109. 

The  manifold  ways  in  which  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  is 
connected  with  justification  will  appear  from  the  exposition  below. 
It  is  at  once  the  great  source  of  the  Christian's  faith,  the  assurance 
of  the  special  character  of  the  object  of  that  faith,  the  proof  that  the 
Sacrifice  which  is  the  ground  of  justification  is  an  accepted  sacrifice, 
and  the  stimulus  to  that  moral  relation  of  the  Christian  to  Christ  in 
which  the  victory  which  Christ  has  won  becomes  his  own  victory. 
See  also  the  notes  on  ch.  vi.  5-8. 


Tht  Place  of  the  Resumttum  of  Christ  m  tht 
teaching  of  St.  Paul. 

The  Resurrection  of  Christ  fills  an  immense  place  in  Ae  teaching 
of  St  Paul,  and  the  &ct  that  it  does  so  accounts  for  the  emphasis 
and  care  with  which  he  states  the  evidence  for  it  (i  Cor.  xv.  i-ii)^ 


rV.  17-2«.J  THE  FAITH  OF  ABRAHAM  117 

(i)  The  Resurrection  is  the  most  conclusive  proof  of  the  Divinity 
of  Christ  (Acts  xvii.  31 ;  Rom.  i  4;  i  Cor.  xv.  14,  15). 

(ii)  As  proving  the  Divinity  of  Christ  the  Resurrection  is  also 
the  most  decisive  proof  of  the  atoning  value  of  His  Death.  But 
for  the  Resurrection,  there  would  have  been  nothing  to  show — at 
least  no  clear  and  convincing  sign  to  show — that  He  who  died  upon 
the  Cross  was  more  than  man.  But  if  the  Victim  of  the  Cross  had 
been  man  and  nothing  more,  there  would  have  been  no  sufficient 
reason  for  attaching  to  His  Death  any  peculiar  efficacy ;  the  faith 
of  Christians  would  be  '  vain,'  they  would  be  *  yet  in  Uieir  sins ' 
(i  Cor.  XV.  17). 

(iii)  In  yet  another  way  the  Resturection  proved  the  efficacy  of 
the  Death  of  Christ.  Without  the  Resurrection  the  Sacrifice  of 
Calvary  would  have  been  incomplete.  The  Resurrection  placed 
upon  that  Sacrifice  the  stamp  of  God's  approval ;  it  showed  that 
the  Sacrifice  was  accepted,  and  that  the  cloud  of  Divine  Wrath — 
the  opyi]  so  long  suspended  and  threatening  to  break  (Rom.  iii.  35, 
a  6)— had  passed  away.  This  is  the  thought  which  lies  at  the  bottom 
of  Rom.  vi.  7-10. 

(iv)  The  Resurrection  of  Christ  is  the  strongest  guarantee  for 
^e  resurrection  of  the  Christian  (i  Cor.  xv.  ao-ag ;  «  Cor.  iv.  14; 
Rom.  viii.  11 ;  Col.  i.  i8). 

(v)  But  that  resurrection  has  two  sides  or  aspects :  it  is  not  only 
physical,  a  future  rising  again  to  physical  life,  but  it  is  also  moral 
and  spiritual,  a  present  rising  from  the  death  of  sin  to  the  life  of 
righteousness.  In  virtue  of  his  union  with  Christ,  the  close  and 
intimate  relation  <^  his  spirit  with  Christ's,  the  Christian  is  called 
upcm  to  repeat  in  himself  the  redeeming  acts  of  Christ.  And  this 
moral  and  spiritual  sense  is  the  only  sense  in  which  he  can  repeat 
diem.  We  shall  have  this  doctrine  fiilly  expounded  in  ch.  vi.  i-ii. 

A  recent  monograph  on  tiie  nibject  of  tbU  note  (E.  Schader,  DU  Bedeuiung 
duUbendigen  Chritiut  fur  di$  Rechtftrtigung  nach  Paulus,  Giitersloh,  1893) 
has  worked  oat  in  much  carefnl  detail  the  third  of  the  above  heads.  Hen 
Schader  (who  since  writing  his  treatise  has  become  Professor  at  Konigsberg) 
insists  strongly  on  the  personal  character  of  the  redemption  wrought  bj 
Christ ;  that  which  redeems  is  not  merely  the  act  of  Christ's  Death  but  His 
Person  (if  ^  cx^A****  ^*'  aTroXiW-poNTti'  Eph.  L  7 ;  Col.  L  14).  It  is  as  a  Person 
that  He  takes  the  place  of  the  sinner  and  endures  the  Wrath  of  God  in  his 
•tead  (Gal.  iii.  13;  a  Cor.  ▼.  ai).  The  Resurrection  is  proof  that  this 
'  Wrath '  is  at  an  coA.  And  therefore  in  certain  salient  passages  (Rom.  iv.  35  ; 
vi.  9,  10 ;  viii.  34)  the  Resurrection  is  even  put  before  the  Death  of  Christ  ai 
th«  came  of  justification.     The  treatise  is  well  deserving  of  study. 

It  may  be  right  also  to  mention,  without  wholly  endorsing,  Dr.  Hort'i 
dgnificant  aphorism  :  '  Reconciliation  or  Atonement  is  one  aspect  of  redemp- 
tion, and  redemption  one  aspect  of  resurrection,  and  resurrection  one  aspect 
of  life'  {Huitiam  Lteturtt,  p.  a  10).  This  can  more  readily  be  accepted  if 
*  oae  aspect '  in  each  case  is  not  taken  to  exclude  the  validity  of  other  aspects. 
At  the  same  thae  snch  a  saying  is  useful  as  a  warning,  which  is  especially 
■ecded  where  the  attrmpt  is  being  made  towards  more  exact  definitions,  that 


Il8  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  1-U. 

•U  definitions  of  great  doctrines  have  a  relatiT*  rather  than  an  abaolnte  valnft 
They  axe  paitial  symbols  of  ideas  which  the  human  miod  cannot  grasp  ip 
their  entirety.  If  we  could  see  as  God  sees  we  should  doubtless  find  them 
running  up  mto  large  and  broad  laws  of  His  working.  We  desire  to  make 
this  reserve  in  regard  to  our  own  attempts  to  define.  Without  it  ccael 
exegesis  noay  well  waam  to  lead  to  •  rariTed  ScholaaticiaB. 


BLISSFITL  CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFIOATION. 

V.  1-11.    TAf  state  which  thus  lies  before  the  Christian 

should  have  consequences  both  near  and  remote.  Tht  nearer 
consequences^  peace  with  God  and  hope  which  gives  courage 
under  persecution  (w.  1-4) :  the  remoter  consequence,  an 
assurance,  derived  from  the  proof  of  God's  love,  of  our  final 
salvation  and  glory.  The  first  step  {our  present  acceptance 
with  God)  is  difficult ;  the  second  step  {our  ultimate  salva^ 
tion)  follows  naturally  from  the  first  (w.  5-11). 

*We  Christians  then  ought  to  enter  upon  oor  privilege*.  By 
that  strong  and  eager  impulse  with  which  we  enroll  ourselves  as 
Christ's  we  may  be  accepted  as  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God,  and 
it  becomes  our  duty  to  enjoy  to  the  full  the  new  state  of  peace 
with  Him  which  we  owe  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Messiah.  'He  it  is 
whose  Death  and  Resurrection,  the  object  of  our  faith  (iv.  »5), 
have  brought  us  within  the  range  of  the  Divine  favour.  Within 
the  sheltered  circle  of  that  favour  we  stand  as  Christians,  in  no 
merely  passive  attitude,  but  we  exult  in  the  hope  of  one  day 
participating  as  in  the  favour  of  God  so  also  in  His  glory.  •  Yes, 
and  this  exultation  of  ours,  so  far  from  being  shaken  by  per- 
secutions is  actually  foimded  upon  them.  For  persecution  only 
generates  fortitude,  or  resolute  endurance  under  trials :  *  and 
then  fortitude  leads  on  to  the  approved  courage  of  the  veteran; 
and  that  in  torn  strengthens  the  hope  out  of  which  k  originally 
sprang. 

^  More :  our  hope  is  one  that  cannot  prove  fllusory ;  because 
(and  here  a  new  factor  is  introduced,  for  the  first  time  in  this 
connexion)  the  Holy  Spirit,  through  whom  God  is  brought  into 
personal  contact  with  man — that  Holy  Spirit  which  we  received 
when  we  became  Christians,  floods  our  hearts  with  the  conscious- 


V.  1-11.]       CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  II9 

ness  of  the  Love  of  God  for  us.  'Think  what  are  the  facts  to 
which  we  can  appeal.  When  we  were  utterly  weak  and  prostrate, 
at  the  moment  of  our  deepest  despair,  Christ  died  for  as — not  as 
righteous  men,  but  as  godless  sinners  I  '  What  a  proof  of  love  was 
there  !  For  an  upright  or  righteous  man  it  would  be  hard  to  find 
one  willing  to  die;  though  perhaps  for  a  good  man  (with  the  loveable 
qualities  of  goodness)  one  here  and  there  may  be  brave  enough  to 
face  death.  *  But  God  presses  home  the  proof  oi  His  unmerited 
Love  towards  us,  in  that,  sinners  as  we  still  were,  Christ  died  for  us. 
•  Here  then  is  an  « fortiori  argument  The  fact  that  we  have 
been  actually  declared  *  righteous '  by  coming  within  the  influence 
of  Christ's  sacrificial  Blood — this  fact  which  implies  a  stupendous 
change  in  the  whole  of  our  relations  to  God  is  a  sure  pledge  of 
what  is  far  easier— our  escape  from  His  final  judgement  '•  Fot 
there  is  a  double  contrast  If  God  intervened  for  us  while  we  were 
His  enemies,  much  more  now  that  we  are  reconciled  to  Him.  If 
the  first  intervention  cost  the  Death  of  His  Son,  the  second  costs 
nothing,  but  follows  naturally  from  the  share  which  we  have  in 
His  Life.  ^  And  not  only  do  we  look  for  this  final  salvation,  but 
we  are  buoyed  up  by  an  exultant  sense  of  that  nearness  to  God 
into  which  we  have  been  brought  by  Christ  to  whom  we  owe  that 
one  great  step  of  our  reconciliation. 

1-lL  Every  line  of  this  passage  breathes  St  Paul's  personal 
experience,  and  his  intense  hold  upon  the  objective  facts  which  are 
the  grounds  of  a  Christian's  confidence.  He  believes  that  the 
ardour  with  which  he  himself  sought  Christian  baptism  was  met  by 
an  answering  change  in  the  whole  relation  in  which  he  stood  to 
God  That  change  he  attributes  ultimately,  it  is  clear  throughout 
this  context,  not  merely  in  general  terms  to  Christ  (dta  v.  i,  a,  11 
bis)  but  more  particularly  to  the  Death  of  Christ  {napfbo&fj  iv.  25; 
iiiri6a»t  V.  6,  8 ;  iv  t»  tu^utri  V.  9  }  i*a  tov  Bavarav  v.  lo).  He  con- 
ceives of  that  Death  as  operating  by  a  sacrificial  blood-shedding 
(eV  Tf  aifuiTi :  cf.  iiL  85  and  the  passages  referred  to  in  the  Note  on 
the  Death  of  Christ  considered  as  a  Sacrifice).  The  Blood  of  that 
Sacrifice  is  as  it  were  sprinkled  round  the  Christian,  and  forms 
a  sort  of  hallowed  enclosure,  a  place  of  sanctuary,  into  which  he 
enters.  Within  this  he  is  safe,  and  from  its  shelter  he  looks  out 
exultingly  over  the  physical  dangers  which  threaten  him ;  they  may 
strengthen  his  firmness  of  purpose,  but  cannot  shake  it. 

L  The  word  dutaiaHny  at  the  end  of  the  last  chapter  recalls  St 
Paul  to  his  main  topic     After  expounding  the  nature  of  his  new 


I20  EPISTLE   TO   THE   ROMANS 

method  of  obtaining  righteousness  in  iii.  21-26,  he  had  begun  to 
draw  some  of  the  consequences  from  this  (the  deathblow  to  Jewish 
pride,  and  the  equality  of  Jew  and  Gentile)  in  iii.  27-31.  This 
suggested  ^he  digression  in  ch.  iv,  to  prove  that  notwithstanding 
there  was  no  breach  of  God's  purposes  as  declared  in  the  O.  T. 
(strictl)  the  Legal  System  which  had  its  charter  in  the  O.  T.),  but 
rather  the  contrary.  Now  he  goes  back  to  'consequences  and 
traces  them  out  for  the  individual  Christian.  He  explains  why  it 
is  that  the  Christian  faces  persecution  and  death  so  joyfully :  he 
has  a  deep  spring  of  tranquility  at  his  hear^  and  a  confident  hope 
of  future  glory. 

cxu|xcK.  The  evidence  for  this  reading  stands  thus :  <xo*Mn'  M  * 
A  B*  C  D  E  K  L,  cursives,  Vulg.  Syrr.  Boh.  Arm.  Aeth.,  Orig.-laL 
repeatedly  Chrys.  Ambrstr.  and  others :  «x<'/*«'  correctors  of  M  B^ 
F  G  (duplicate  MSS.  it  will  be  remembered)  in  the  Greek  though 
not  in  the  Latin,  P  and  many  cursives,  Did.  Epiph.  Cyr.-Alex.  in 
three  places  out  of  four.  Clearly  overwhelming  authority  for 
Zxoiftn.  It  is  argued  however  (i)  that  exhortation  is  here  out  ot 
place:  'inference  not  exhortation  is  the  Apostle's  purpose' 
(Scrivener,  Introd.  ii.  380  ed.  4);  (ii)  that  e  and  «  are  frequendy 
interchanged  in  the  MSS.,  as  in  this  very  word  Gal.  vi.  10  (cf. 
I  Cor.  XV.  49) ;  (iii)  it  b  possible  that  a  mistake  might  have  been 
made  by  Tertius  in  copying  or  in  some  very  early  MS.  from  which 
the  mass  of  the  uncials  and  versions  now  extant  may  have  de- 
scended. But  these  reasons  seem  insufficient  to  overthrow  the 
weight  of  direct  testimony,  (i)  St.  Paul  is  apt  to  pass  from  argu- 
ment to  exhortation;  so  in  the  near  context  vi.  (i),  is,  (15); 
viii.  I  a  ;  (ii)  in  «x**/*<»'  inference  and  exhortation  are  really  com- 
bined :  it  is  a  sort  of  light  exhortation,  '  we  tkould  have '  (T.  S. 
Evans). 

As  to  the  meaning  of  *x**iuv  it  should  be  observed  that  it  does 
not  s=  '  make  peace,'  '  get '  or  *  obtain  peace  '  (which  would  be 
o-xv/Mv),  but  rather  '  keep '  or '  enjoy  peace  *  (ov  yap  iarw  utov  fiti  oiavr 

tlpi}vrfv  XafieiP  cat   doBt'urap  Karavxt'if  ChryS. ;    cf.  ActS   ix.    3 1    i)   fifP 

ovv  iKKktjala  . . .  tixt*  *lpfm*'i '  continued  in  a  state  of  peace ').  The 
aor.  part.  iucaitidfVTts  marks  the  initial  moment  of  the  state  tlprfvrip 
Ix«»fitp.  The  declaration  of  '  not  guilty,'  which  the  sinner  comes 
under  by  a  heartfelt  embracing  of  Christianity,  at  once  does  away 
with  the  state  of  hostility  in  which  he  had  stood  to  God,  and 
substitutes  for  it  a  state  of  peace  which  he  has  only  to  realize. 
This  declaration  of '  not  guilty '  and  the  peace  which  follows  upon 
it  are  not  due  to  himself,  but  are  iia  toC  Kvpiov  ^pAp  'irjaov  Xpivni : 
kaw  is  explained  more  fully  in  iii.  25 ;  also  in  w.  9,  10  below. 

Dr.  J.  Agar  B«et  (Comm.  *J  l»€.)  discnsses  the  exact  shade  of  meaning 
conveyed  by  the  aor.  part.  ZucaiwSivrtt  in  relation  to  tlpffPriP  {)guptr.  Ha 
ooQtenda  that  it  denotes  not  to  much  the  rtasam  for  entering  upon  the  ttatt 


¥.  1,  a.]        CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  131 

Ib  qaeition  u  the  mtams  of  entering  apoa  it.    No  doabt  this  It  perfectly 

tenable  on  the  score  of  grammar;  and  it  is  also  tme  that  'jnstification 
necessarily  inTolves  peace  with  God.'  But  the  argument  goes  too  much 
npon  the  assumption  that  tip.  ex-  =  '  obtain  peace,'  which  we  have  seen  to 
be  erroneous.  The  sense  is  exactly  that  of  t^x**  *ip^vr)v  in  the  passage 
quoted  from  the  Acts,  and  tutaitiO.,  as  we  have  said,  marks  the  initial 
moment  Ib  the  state 

S.  T}|r  irpoaaywy^r.  Two  Stages  only  are  described  in  w.  i,  a 
though  different  language  is  used  about  them :  biKaimdivrtt  =  17 
npoo'aymyif^  tipifvii  ^  xapts ;  the  Kavxr^irit  is  a  characteristic  of  the 
state  <^  x^P"*  At  the  same  time  that  it  points  forward  to  a  future 
itate  of  bo^  The  phrase  ff  npovay.,  '  our  introduction,'  is  a  con- 
necting link  between  this  Epistle  and  Ephesians  (cp.  £ph.  ii.  18; 
iii.  I  a) :  the  idea  is  that  of  introduction  to  the  presence-chamber  of 
a  monarch.  The  rendering  '  access '  is  inadequate,  as  it  leaves 
out  of  sight  the  fact  that  we  do  not  come  in  our  own  strength  but 
need  an  *  introducer ' — Christ 

ivx^f^tla^l.^¥ :  not  '  we  have  had '  (Va.),  but  '  we  have  got  ot 
obtained,'  aor.  and  perf.  in  one. 

'  Both  grammar  and  logic  will  nm  in  perfect  harmony  together  if  we 
render,  "through  whom  we  hare  by  faith  got  or  obtained  our  access  into 
this  grace  wherein  we  stand."  This  rendering  will  bring  to  view  two  causes 
of  getting  the  access  or  obtaining  the  introduction  into  the  state  of  grace ; 
one  cause  objective,  Christ:  the  other  subjective,  faith;  Christ  the  door, 
faith  the  hand  which  moves  the  door  to  open  and  to  adniit '  (T.  S.  Evans  in 
£m/.  1 88a,  L  169). 

rg  irtcrra  om.  BDEFG,  Lat  Vet.,  Orig.-lat  Us.  The  weight  of  this 
eridenee  depend*  <m  the  value  which  we  assign  to  B.  All  the  other  evidence 
is  Western ;  and  B  also  (as  we  have  seen)  has  a  Western  element ;  so  that 
the  question  is  whether  the  omission  here  in  B  is  an  independent  corrobora- 
tion of  the  Western  group  or  whether  it  simply  belongs  to  it  (docs  the 
evidence  »  P  +  8,  or  8  only?).  There  is  the  farther  point  that  omissions  in 
the  Western  text  deserve  more  attention  than  additions.  Either  reading  can 
be  easily  enough  accounted  for,  as  an  obvious  gloss  on  the  one  hand  or  the 
omission  of  a  superfluous  phrase  on  the  other.  The  balance  is  sufficiently 
represented  by  placing  rp  wiaru  ia  brackets  as  Treg.  WH.  RV.  tmar^.  (Weiss 
omits). 

cU  t^v  X'^P'*  Tn'Sr^w :  the  '  state  of  grace '  or  condition  of  those 
who  are  objects  of  the  Divine  favour,  conceived  of  as  a  space 
fenced  in  (Mey.  Va.  &c.)  into  which  the  Christian  enters  :  cf.  Gal. 
V.  4  ;  I  Pet.  v.  1 2  (Va.  and  Grm.-Thay.  s.  v.  ^ap's  3-  a). 

4(rr^Ka|icr :  '  stand  fast  or  firm '  (see  Va.  and  Grm.-Thay.  a.  v. 
tarrrip*  ii.  2.  d). 

^ir'  i\Ttl%i :  as  in  iv.  18. 

TTJ$  8o'|t|s.  See  on  iii.  23.  It  is  the  Glory  of  the  Divine 
Presence  (Shekinah)  communicated  to  man  (partially  here,  but)  in 
full  measure  when  he  enters  into  that  Fiei»ence ;  man's  whole  being 
will  be  uansfigured  by  iu 


I9«  EPISTLK  TO  THE  ROMANS  (V.  1,  % 


Is  th4  Society  9r  thi  Individual  tht  proper  obiect  0f 
Justification  f 

It  is  well  known  to  be  a  characteristic  feature  <rf  the  theology 

of  Ritschl  that  he  regards  the  proper  object  of  Justification  as  the 
Christian  Society  as  a  collective  whole,  and  not  the  individual  as 
such.  This  view  is  based  upon  two  main  groups  of  arguments, 
(i)  The  first  is  derived  from  the  analogy  of  the  O.  T.  The  great 
sacrifices  of  the  O.  T.  were  undoubtedly  meant  in  the  first  instance 
for  '  the  congregation.'  So  in  regard  to  the  Passover  it  is  laid 
down  expressly  that  no  alien  is  to  eat  of  it,  but  all  the  congregation 
of  Israel  are  to  keep  it  (Ex.  xii.  43  flF.,  47).  And  still  more 
disiinctly  as  to  the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement:  the  high  priest 
is  to  'make  atonement  for  the  holy  place,  because  of  the  un- 
cleannesses  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  because  of  their  trans- 
gressions, even  all  their  sins ' ;  he  is  to  lay  both  his  hands  on  the 
head  of  the  goat,  and  '  confess  over  him  all  the  iniquities  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  all  their  transgressions,  even  all  their  sins ' 
(Lev.  xvi.  i6,  a  I,  also  33  f.).  This  argument  gains  in  force  from 
the  concentration  of  the  Christian  Sacrifice  upon  a  single  event, 
accomplished  once  for  all.  It  is  natural  to  think  of  it  as  having 
also  a  single  and  permanent  object.  (2)  The  second  argument  is 
derived  from  the  exegesis  of  the  N.  T.  generally  (most  clearly 
perhaps   in  Acts  xx.  a  8  ri]v  iKKkt\aiav  tov  Qtoi  fy.  1,  KuptovJ,  ffp 

wtpitiToirjcraTO  8ta  roii  atfiaros  row  Idiov  :    but  also  in  I  Jo.  ii.  a  ;   Iv.  I O ; 

I  Pet.  iil  18;  Apoc.  i.  sf. ;  v.  9f.),  and  more  particularly  in  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  society  is,  it  is  true,  most  clearly 
indicated  in  the  later  Epp. ;  c.  g.  Tit.  ii.  1 4  wr^pos  fifuov  '1.  x.,  &$ 

fd<oKtP  iavrip  vnep  fjfiiov,  Iva  XvrpoxrrjTai  rjfias  . .  .  Ka\  naBapiar)  iavr^  \a^p 
vtpioiKTiov  '.  Eph.  V.  25  f«  ^  Xpurros  rjydnTjat  Tfjv  (KitXtjaiap,  Kai  iavrov 
irapiboiKtp  inrip  aires'  ti'a  airfip  Ayidafj  KaSupiaas  K.r.X,  (cf.  also  Eph.  ii. 

18;  iii.  12;  Col.  L  14).  But  Ritschl  also  claims  the  support  of 
the  earlier  Epp.:   e.g.  Rom.  viii,  3a  vvip  fifiQ>p  ndt^mv  napfbtnttp 

aiirdp  :   iii.  2  a  8iKau)(Tvvtf  it  Qtoi>  .  .  ,  tit  ndprat  roi/t  VKrrtvouras  I   and 

the  repeated  »7M'«  in  the  contexts  of  three  passage*  (Comp.  Ruht- 
fert.  u,  Versohn.  ii.  a  16  f,  160). 

In   reply   the   critics  of  Ritschl   appeal   to  the  dist  nctly  in- 
dividualistic cast  erf*  such  expressions  as  Rom.  iii.  a  6  biKaioivra  ro» 

in  ifioTftis  'It/o-ov  :  iv.  5  fTTi  TOV  dtKaiovvra  tov  acfjSij,  With  the  COnteXt  : 
X.  4  tU  diKaio<rvvr)P  navri  r^  nKrrtvovn  (Schader,  Op.  cit.  p.  %f)  n.  J   cf. 

also  Gloel,  Der  Heilige  Geitt,  p.  loa  n.;  Weiss,  Bibi  Thtol.  §  8a  b, 
referred  to  by  Schider). 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  St  Paul  does  use  language  which 

points  to  the  direct  justification  of  the  individual  believer.     Thia 


V.  I,  2.]        CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  l»$ 

perhaps  comes  out  most  clearly  in  Rom.  iv,  where  the  personal 
faith  and  personal  justification  of  Abraham  are  taken  as  typical  of 
the  Christian's.  But  need  we  on  tiiat  account  throw  over  the  other 
passages  above  quoted,  which  seem  to  be  quite  as  unambiguous  ? 
That  which  brings  benefit  to  the  Church  collectively  of  necessity 
brings  benefit  to  the  individuals  of  which  it  is  composed.  We 
may  if  we  like,  as  St.  Paul  very  often  does,  leave  out  of  sight  the 
intervening  steps;  and  it  is  perhaps  the  more  natural  that  he 
should  do  so,  as  the  Church  is  in  this  connexion  an  ideal  entity. 
But  this  entity  is  prior  in  thought  to  the  members  who  compose 
it;  and  when  we  think  of  the  Great  Sacrifice  as  consummated 
once  for  all  and  in  its  effects  reaching  down  through  the  ages,  it  is 
no  less  natural  to  let  the  mind  dwell  on  the  conception  which 
alone  embraces  past,  present,  and  future,  and  alone  binds  all  the 
scattered  particulars  into  unity. 

We  must  remember  also  that  in  the  age  and  to  the  thought  of 
St.  Paul  the  act  of  faith  in  the  individual  which  brings  him  within 
the  range  of  justification  is  inseparably  connected  with  its  ratifica- 
tion in  baptism.  But  the  significance  of  baptism  lies  in  the  fact 
that  whoever  undergoes  it  is  made  thereby  member  of  a  society, 
and  becomes  at  once  a  recipient  of  the  privileges  and  immunities 
of  that  society.  St.  Paul  is  about  (in  the  next  chapter)  to  lay 
stress  on  this  point.  He  there,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  describes  the 
relation  of  spiritual  union  into  which  the  Christian  enters  with 
Christ  as  established  by  the  same  act  which  makes  him  also 
member  of  the  society.  And  therefore  when  at  the  beginning  of 
the  present  chapter  he  speaks  of  the  entrance  of  the  Christian  into 
the  state  of  grace  in  metaphors  which  present  that  state  under  the 
figure  of  a  fenced-oflF  enclosure,  it  is  natural  to  identify  the  area 
within  which  grace  and  justification  operate  with  the  area  of  the 
society,  in  other  words  with  the  Church.  The  Church  however  in 
this  connexion  can  have  no  narrower  definition  than  '  all  baptized 
persons.'  And  even  the  condition  of  baptism  is  introduced  as  an 
inseparable  adjunct  to  faith;  so  that  if  through  any  exceptional 
circumstances  the  two  were  separated,  the  greater  might  be  taken 
to  include  the  less.  The  Christian  theologian  has  to  do  with  what 
is  normal ;  the  abnormal  he  leaves  to  the  Searcher  of  hearts. 

It  is  thus  neither  in  a  spirit  of  exclusiveness  nor  yet  in  that  of 
any  hard  and  fast  Scholasticism,  but  only  in  accordance  with  the 
free  and  natiu-al  tendencies  of  the  Apostle's  thought,  that  we  speak 
of  Justification  as  normally  mediated  through  the  Church.  St. 
Paul  himself,  as  we  have  seen,  often  drops  the  intervening  link, 
especially  in  the  earlier  Epistles.  But  in  proportion  as  his  maturer 
insight  dwells  more  and  more  upon  the  Church  as  an  organic 
whole  he  also  conceives  of  it  as  doing  for  the  individual  believer 
what  the  '  congregation '  did  for  the  individual  Israelites  tmder  the 


\ 


114  EPISTLE   TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  2-& 

older  dispensation.  The  Christian  Sacrifice  with  its  effects,  like 
the  sacrifices  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  by  which  it  is  typified, 
reach  the  individual  through  the  community. 

8-5.  The  two  leading  types  of  the  Old-Latin  Version  of  the  Epistle  stand 
oat  distinctly  in  these  verset.  We  are  fortunately  able  to  compare  the 
Cyprianic  text  with  that  of  Tertnllian  {mm  solum  .  .  .  confundit^  and  the 
European  text  of  Cod.  Clarom.  with  that  of  Hilary  {tribulatio  .  .  .  amfundU). 
The  passage  is  also  quoted  in  the  so-called  Speculum  (m),  which  represents 
the  Bible  of  the  Spaniard  Priscillian  {ClassicaJ  Rtview,  iv.  416  f.). 

Cyprian.  Cod.  Clarom. 

Non  solum  auttm,  sed  et  gloriamur  Non  solum  autem,  sed  tt  glcrutmur 

in  prtssuris,  scientes  quoniam  pres-  in  tribulationibuSf  scientes  quod  tribu- 

sura  tolerantiam  operatur,  tolerantia  latio  patientiam   optratur,  patuntia 

autem  probationem,  probatio    autem  autem  probationem,  probatio    autem 

spem  ;  spes  autem  non  confundit,  quia  spem  ;  spes  autem  noM  confundit,  quia 

dikctio  Dei  infusa  est  cordibus  nostris  caritat   Dei  diffusa  est   in  corJibus 

per  Spiritum  Sanctum  qui  datus  est  nostris  per   Spiritum   Sanctum   qui 

nobis.  datus  est  nobis. 

verum  etiam  exultantes  TtiL  ;  certi  perficit   Hil. ;  proi.  9*r»   mHil.; 

quod  Tert. ;  perficicd  Tcrt.  (ed.  Vin-  sp«s  vert  Hil.  (Cod.  Clarom.  =  m). 
dob.) ;  tol-  vera  Tert. ;  spes  vero  Tert. 

Here,  as  elsewhere  in  Epp.  Paul.,  there  is  a  considerable  amotmt  of  matter 
common  to  all  forms  of  the  Version,  enough  to  give  colour  to  the  supposition 
that  a  single  translation  lies  at  their  root.  But  the  salient  expressions  arc 
changed ;  and  in  this  instance  Tertnllian  goes  with  Cyprian,  as  Hilary  with 
the  European  texts.  The  renderings  tolerantia  and  pressurm  arc  Terified  f<» 
Tertnllian  elsewhere  {tolerantia  Luke  xxi.  19 ;  i  Thess.  i.  4 :  prusurm 
Rom.  viii.  35  ;  xii.  i  a ;  i  Cor.  yii.  a8 ;  a  Cor.  L  8 ;  iv.  1 7 ;  tL  a  ;  vii.  4 ; 
Col.  i.  34;  2  Thest.  i.  4;  Apoc  ii.  as ;  vii.  14),  as  also  dilsetis  (to  which 
the  quotation  does  not  extend  in  this  passage,  but  which  is  found  ia 
Luke  xi.  4a  ;  John  xiii.  35  ;  Rom.  viii.  35,  39 ;  i  Cor.  xiii.  1  ff.,  &c.).  We 
note  however  that  Hilary  and  Tertnllian  agree  in  ptrficit  {p4r/icicU),  though 
in  another  place  Hilary  has  allusively  tribulcuio  patuntiam  ofermtur. 
Perhaps  this  coincidence  may  point  to  an  older  rendering. 

8.  ou  (iOKOf  %i  (JaTTjKafitv  oXXc  xol  Kavxttf^'Ba,  Of  con^mm  aXXa  itdi 
Kovx^iMtvoi) :  in  this  elliptical  form  characteristic  of  St.  Paul  and 
esp.  of  this  group  of  Epistles  (cf.  v.  11 ;  viiL  13 ;  ix.  10 ;  t  Cor. 
viii.  19). 

Kavx^iMvoi  B  C,  Orig.  Hs  and  others :  «  eood  group,  but  open  to  saspidoo 
of  coDforming  to  ver.  11  (q.  v.) ;  we  have  luso  found  a  similar  group,  on  the 
whole  inferior,  in  iii.  aS.  If  Kavx<^/<f>'ot  were  right  it  would  be  another 
example  of  that  broken  and  somewhat  inconsecutive  structure  which  is 
doubtless  due,  as  Va.  suggests,  to  the  habit  of  dictating  to  an  anuuanensis. 

Note  the  contrast  between  the  Jewish  «ivx»?o'»f  which '  is  excluded ' 
(iii.  27)  and  this  Christian  KaixTi<rn.  The  one  rests  oa  supposed 
himian  privileges  and  merit ;  the  other  draws  all  its  force  from  the 
assurance  of  Divine  love. 

The  Jewish  writers  know  of  another  navxv^tt  (besides  the  empty  bocuting 
which  St.  Paul  reprehends),  but  it  is  reserved  for  the  blest  in  Paradj^:  4  Err. 
vii.  98  [Bensly  =  vi.  72  O.  F.  Fritzsche]  exultabunt  eumjidmitt  tt  .  -  ,  ctm- 
/idebunt  non  confusi,  tt  gaudebunt  non  rtvertntts. 


▼.  »-5.]       CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  145 

Ir  Tcuf  9Xii|f6(ri.  The  $\i^tis  are  the  physical  hardships  and 
sufferings  that  St  Paul  regards  as  the  inevitable  portion  of  the 
Christian;  cf.  Rom.  viii.  35ff. ;  i  Cor.  iv.  11-13;  vii.  26-32  ;  xv. 
30-32;  a  Cor.  i.  3-10;  xi.  23-27.  Such  passages  give  us 
glimpses  of  the  stormy  background  which  lies  behind  St.  Paul's 
Epistles.  He  is  so  absorbed  in  his  '  Gospel '  that  this  makes  very 
little  impression  upon  him.  Indeed,  as  this  chapter  shows,  the 
overwhelming  sense  of  God's  mercy  and  love  fills  him  with  such 
exultation  of  spirit  that  bodily  suffering  not  only  weighs  like  dust  in 
the  balance  but  positively  serves  to  strengthen  his  constancy.  The 
same  feeling  comes  out  in  the  imtpvuiufttv  of  viii.  37 :  the  whole 
passage  is  parallel. 

d-ro|u>inf)r:  not  merely  a  passive  quality  but  a  'masculine  con- 
stancy in  holding  out  under  trials '  (Waite  on  s  Cor.  vL  4),  '  forti- 
tude.'    See  on  ii.  7  above. 

4.  8oKifti/| :  the  character  which  results  from  the  process  of  trial, 
the  temper  of  the  veteran  as  opposed  to  that  of  the  raw  recruit ;  cf. 
James  Lis,  &c.  The  exact  order  of  Inonovl}  and  doKifif)  must  not 
be  pressed  too  far :  in  St.  James  i.  3  t6  SokIhiov  r^r  wiaTtan  produces 
vn-ofi*yi|.  If  St.  James  had  seen  this  Epistld  (which  is  doubtful)  we 
might  suppose  that  he  had  this  passage  in  his  mind.  The  con- 
ception is  that  of  a  Tim.  iL  3  (in  the  revised  as  well  as  the  received 
text). 

ij  8j  SoKi|fcf|  IXirtSo.  It  is  quite  Intelligible  as  a  fact  of  experience 
that  the  hope  which  is  in  its  origin  doctrinal  should  be  strengthened 
by  the  hardening  and  bracing  of  character  which  come  from 
actual  conflict.  Still  the  ultimate  basis  of  it  is  the  overwhelming 
sense  of  God's  love,  brought  home  through  the  Death  of  Christ ; 
and  to  this  the  Apostle  returns. 

6.  o4  Karaiorxi'fci :  '  does  not  disappoint,' '  does  not  prove  illusory.' 
The  text  Is.  xxviii.  16  (LXX)  caught  the  attention  of  the  early 
Christians  from  the  Messianic  reference  contained  in  it  ('  Behold, 
I  lay  in  Zion,'  tec),  and  the  assurance  by  which  this  was  followed 
('he  that  believeth  shall  not  be  put  to  shame')  was  confirmed  to 
diem  by  their  own  experience :  the  verse  is  directly  quoted  Rom. 
ix.  33  q.  V. ;  I  Pet.  ii.  6. 

^  i,ydin\  T08  eeou  :  certainly  '  the  love  of  God  for  us,'  not '  our 
love  for  God '  (Theodrt.  Aug.  and  some  moderns) :  dyaTn;  thus 
comes  to  mean,  '  our  smse  of  God's  love,'  just  as  W/j^mj  ss  '  our 
sense  of  peace  with  God' 

iKKixfrrai.  The  idea  o(  spiritual  refreshment  and  encourage- 
ment is  usually  conveyed  in  the  East  through  the  metaphor  of 
waUring.  Sl  Paul  seems  to  have  had  in  his  mind  Is.  xliv.  3 
'  I  will  potu*  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  streams  upon  the 
dry  ground :  I  will  pour  My  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,'  &c. 

%ik  nrcuffcaTos  'Ayiou:  without  the  art,  for  the  Spirit  as  imparted 


I  aft  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  6,  « 

St.  Paul  refers  all  his  conscious  experience  of  the  privileges  d 
Christianity  to  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  dating  from  the 
time  when  he  definitively  enrolled  himself  as  a  Christian,  i.  e.  from 
his  baptism. 

6.  ?Ti  ydp.  There  is  here  a  difficult,  but  not  really  very  im- 
portant, variety  of  reading,  the  evidence  for  which  may  be  thus 
summarized : — 

frt  yap  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  with  It*  also  after  ivdnw, 
the  mass  of  I\ISS. 

fri  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  only,  some  inferior  MSS. 
(later  stage  of  the  Ecclesiastical  text). 

«r  ri  yap  (possibly  representing  Ipa  ri  yap,  ut  quid  enim),  the 
Western  text  (Latin  authorities). 

•/  yap  few  authorities,  pardy  Latin. 

•?  -y.  B. 
It  is  not  easy  to  select  from  these  a  reading  which  shall  account 
for  all  the  variants.  That  indeed  which  has  the  best  authority,  the 
double  fTi,  does  not  seem  to  be  tenable,  unless  we  suppose  an 
accidental  repetition  of  the  word  either  by  St.  Paul  or  his  amanuensis. 
It  would  not  be  difficult  to  get  «rt  yap  from  'pa  W  yap,  or  vice  versa, 
through  the  doubling  or  dropping  of  in  from  the  preceding  word 
HMiN ;  nor  would  it  be  difficult  to  explain  tin  yap  from  «  yap,  or 
vice  versa.  We  might  then  work  our  way  back  to  an  alternative  tl 
ydp  or  «  yf,  ^iiich  might  be  confused  with  each  other  through  the 
use  of  an  abbreviation.  Fuller  details  are  given  below.  We  think 
on  the  whole  that  it  is  not  improbable  that  here,  as  in  iv.  i,  B  has 
preserved  the  original  reading  »i  ye.  For  the  meaning  of  e»  yt  {*  so 
surely  as '  Va.)  see  T.  S.  Evans  in  £xp.  i88a,  i.  176  f.;  and  the  note 
on  iii.  30  above. 

lo  more  detail  the  trldence  stands  thus :  frt  yAf  here  with  In  alto  after 
iffOeywi'  K  A  C  D*  «/. :  in  here  only  D«  E  K  L  P  &;c. :  tit  ri  y&p  D"  F  G  : 
mi  quid  tnim  Lat.-Vet.  Vulg.,  Iren.-lat  Fanstin :  et  yap  104  Greg.  (=  h 
Scriv.  ,  fuld  ,  Isid.-Pelu8.  Aug.  bit :  tl  7<i/> . .  .tn  Boh.  ('  For  if,  we  being  still 
weak,'  &c.^ :  *l  hi  Pesh. :  *l  y*  B.  [The  readings  are  wrongly  given  by  Lips., 
and  not  quite  correctly  even  by  CJif.,  through  overlooking  the  commas  in  Tisch. 
The  statement  which  is  at  once  fullest  and  most  exact  will  be  found  in  WH.] 
It  thus  appears:  (i)  that  the  reading  most  strongly  supported  is  In  ydp, 
with  double  tri,  which  is  impossible  tuiless  we  suppose  a  lapsus  calami 
between  St.  Paul  and  his  amanuensis,  (a)  The  Western  reading  is  tU  rl 
ydp,  which  may  conceivably  be  a  paraphrastic  equivalent  for  an  original  fvo 
ri  yap  (Gif.,  from  ut  quid  enim  of  Iren.-lat.  &c.) :  this  is  no  doubt  a  very 
early  reading.  (3)  Another  sporadic  reading  is  »l  yap.  (4)  B  alone  gives 
fi  yt.  So  far  as  sense  goes  this  is  the  best,  and  there  are  not  a  few  cases  in 
N  T.  where  the  reading  of  B  alone  strongly  commends  itself  (cf.  iv.  r  above) 
But  the  problem  is,  how  to  account  for  the  other  readings?  It  would  not  be 
difhcult  palaeographically  from  *l  ydp  to  get  in  ydp  by  dittography  ol 
I  (eifAp,  €nrAp,  eriTAp),  or  from  this  again  to  get  cb  ri  ydp  through  ditto* 
graphy  of  f  and  confusion  with  c  (tCTirAp) ;  or  we  might  take  the  alternative 
ingeniously  suggested  b)  Gif.,  of  supposing  that  the  original  reading  was  'am 


V.  6,  7.]        CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  127 

W  fip,  ni  which  the  first  two  letters  h«d  been  absorbed  by  the  prerious  ■fipln 
(NHiN[iN]ATirAp).  There  wonld  thus  be  no  great  difiicnlty  in  accounting  for 
Uie  origin  either  of  It«  -^ap  or  of  the  group  of  Western  readings ;  and  the 
primitive  variants  wonld  be  reduced  to  the  two,  ei  f  ap  and  ei  r^.  Dr.  Hort 
proposed  to  account  for  these  by  a  conjectural  ci  ncp,  which  would  be  a  con- 
ceivable root  for  all  the  variations — partly  through  paraphrase  and  partly 
through  errors  of  transcription.  We  might  however  escape  the  necessity  of 
neaorting  to  conjecture  by  supposing  confusion  between  pt  and  the  abbrevia- 
tion tfc.  [For  thia  form  see  T.  W.  Allen,  Notei  on  Abbreviations  in  Greek 
AfSS.  (Oxford,  1889),  P-  9  *nd  P^-  >"?  Lehmann,  Die  tachygraphischen  Ab- 
kUrzungtH  d.  griech.  Handschrifttn  (Leipzig,  1880),  p.  91  f.  taf.  9.  We 
believe  that  the  oldest  extant  example  is  in  the  Fragmenlum  Mathematicum 
Bobienst  of  the  seventh  century  (Wattenbach,  Script.  Graec.  Specim.  tab.  8), 
where  the  abbreviation  appears  in  a  corrupt  form.  But  we  know  that  short- 
hand was  very  largely  practised  in  the  early  centuries  (cf.  Eus.  H.  E. 
VL  xxiii.  a),  and  it  may  have  been  used  by  Tertius  himself.]  Where  we 
have  such  a  tangled  skein  to  unravel  as  this  it  is  impossible  to  speak  very 
confidently ;  but  we  suspect  that  ti  7<,  as  it  makes  the  best  sense,  noay  also 
bt  tht  ori^al  reading. 

«T  r«  («>  *) 


Vn  r*p  «•'  rif 


in  r«r 


tid 


mt  fuid  mtm 

4UT0crAr :  '  Incapable '  of  working  oat  any  righteousness  for  our- 
■elves. 

»oTd  Kaip6r.  St.  Paul  is  strongly  impressed  with  the  fitness  of 
the  moment  in  the  world's  history  which  Christ  chose  for  His 
intervention  in  it.  This  idea  is  a  strikins?  link  of  connexion  between 
the  (practically)  acknowledged  and  the  disputed  Epistles ;  compare 
on  the  one  hand  Gal.  iv.  4  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  2  ;  Rom.  iii.  26;  and  on 
the  other  hand  Eph.  L  10 ;  i  Tim.  il  6  ;  vi.  15  ;  Tit.  L  3. 

7.  fioXis  Y'^P-  The  ydp  explains  how  this  dying  for  sinners  is 
a  conspicuous  proof  of  love.  A  few  may  face  death  for  a  good 
man,  still  fewer  for  a  righteous  man,  but  in  the  case  of  Christ 
there  is  more  even  than  this ;  He  died  for  declared  enemies  of  God. 

For  n6\ii  the  first  hand  of  M  and  Orig.  read  (loyis,  which  has  more 
attestation  in  Luke  ix.  39.  The  two  wordi  were  easily  confused  both  in 
sense  and  in  writing. 

6ircp  SiKoiou.  There  is  clearly  in  this  passage  a  contrast  between 
(mtp  diKaiov  and  inip  roi  dyn6ov.  They  are  not  expressions  which 
may  be  taken  as  roughly  synonymous  (Mey.-W.  Lips.  &c.),  but  it 


ia8  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  7-8 

is  implied  that  it  is  an  easier  thing  to  die  for  the  iya66t  than  for  the 
i'lKuot.  Similarly  the  Gnostics  drew  a  distinction  between  the 
God  of  the  O.  T.  and  the  God  of  the  N,  T„  calling  the  one  iUaiot 
and  the  other  aya66s  (Iren.  Adv.  Haer.  I.  xxvii.  i ;  comp.  other 
passages  and  authorities  quoted  by  Gif  p.  183).  The  dtVator  keeps 
to  the  '  letter  of  his  bond ' ;  about  the  ayaQit  there  is  something 
warmer  and  more  genial  such  as  may  well  move  to  self-sacrifice 
and  devotion. 

In  face  of  the  clear  and  obvious  parallel  supplied  by  Irenaeus, 
not  to  speak  of  others,  it  should  not  be  argued  as  it  is  by  Weiss 
and  Lips,  (who  make  roi  dyaSov  neut.)  and  even  by  Mey.  and  Dr. 
T.  K.  Abbott  {Essayx,  p.  75)  that  there  is  no  substantial  difference 
between  iUaiot  and  aya66t.  We  ourselves  often  use  'righteous' 
and  '  good '  as  equivalent  without  effacing  the  distinction  between 
them  when  there  is  any  reason  to  emphasize  it  The  stumbling- 
block  of  the  art.  before  dyaSov  and  not  before  Amo/ov  need  not  stand 
in  the  way.  This  is  sufficiently  explained  by  Gif.,  who  points  out 
that  the  clause  beginning  with  /ioXts  is  virtually  negative,  so  that 
iiKa'un>  is  indefinite  and  does  not  need  the  art.,  while  the  affirmative 
clause  implies  a  definite  instance  which  the  art.  indicates. 

We  go  therefore  with  most  English  and  American  scholars 
(Stuart,  Hodge,  Gif.  Va.  Lid.)  against  some  leading  Continental 
names  in  maintaining  what  appears  to  be  the  simple  and  natural 
sense  of  the  passage. 

8.  aoi'iorrjai :  see  on  iii.  5. 

T^i'  ^auToG  6.y&m\¥ :  '  His  own  love,'  emphatic,  prompted  from 
within  not  from  without  Observe  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  here 
referred  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  which  lies  behind  the  whole  of 
what  is  commonly  (and  not  wrongly)  called  the  '  scheme  of  re- 
demption.' Gif.  excellently  remarks  that  the  '  proof  of  God's  love 
towards  us  drawn  from  the  death  of  Christ  is  strong  in  proportion 
to  the  closeness  of  the  union  between  God  and  Christ.'  It  is  the 
death  of  One  who  is  nothing  less  than  '  the  Son.' 

ri\v  lavToO  i-ydirriv  alt  f|^ay  h  B<6t  KACKP  &e.:  4  Ocdr  •!>  |/ift 
D  £  F  G  L :  om.  6  Bt6%  B.  There  it  do  snbstantud  differenoe  of  metniDg, 
w  *U  liiMt  in  any  case  goes  with  cwiartiat,  not  with  dydn^r. 

6vjp  ^fiuK  dWdarc.  St.  Paul  uses  emphatic  language,  i  Cor. 
XV.  1-3,  to  show  that  this  doctrine  was  not  confined  to  himself  but 
was  a  common  property  of  Christians. 

9.  St  Paul  here  separates  bntw<en '  justification,'  the  pronouncing 
'not  guilty'  of  sinners  in  the  p^st  and  their  final  salvation  from  the 
wrath  to  come.  He  also  clearly  connects  the  act  of  justification 
with  the  bloodshedding  of  Christ:  he  would  have  said  with  the 
author  of  Heb.  ix.  aa  x**^'"  oiftaTtKxva'uK  ov  yuwrtu  l^onr,  see  p.  9a, 
above. 


V.  9-11.]      CONSEQUENCES  OF  JUSTIFICATION  ia§ 

No  clearer  passage  can  be  quoted  for  distinguishing  the  spheres 
of  justification  and  sanctification  than  this  verse  and  the  next — the 
one  an  objective  fact  accomplished  without  us,  the  other  a  change 
operated  within  us.  Both,  Uiough  in  different  ways,  proceed  from 
Christ. 

%i  oAtou  :  explained  by  the  next  verse  eV  rg  (m§  airrov.  That 
which  saves  the  Christian  from  final  judgement  is  his  union  with 
the  living  Christ 

10.  Ka-n]\X<iyT)fier.  The  natural  prima  facie  view  is  that  the 
reconciliation  is  mutual ;  and  this  view  appears  to  verify  itself  on 
exammation :  see  below. 

cf  TQ  (uj  auTou.  For  the  full  meaning  of  this  see  the  notes  on 
ch.  vi.  8-1 1 ;  viii.  lo,  ii. 

11.  KauxtifJici'oi  (fc^  B  C  D,  &c.)  is  decisively  attested  for  Kovx^Mf^a, 
which  was  doubtless  due  to  an  attempt  to  improve  the  construction. 
The  part,  is  loosely  attached  to  what  precedes,  and  must  be  taken 
as  in  sense  equivalent  to  KavxiainQa.  In  any  case  it  is  present  and 
not  future  (as  if  constructed  with  crm6r\a6\ii6a).  We  may  compare 
a  similar  loose  attachment  of  dticatov/xcyei  in  ch.  iii  24. 


Tht  Idea  of  Reconciliation  or  Atonement, 

The  KoratCKarfr)  described  in  these  verses  is  the  same  as  the  ftp^vi; 
of  ver.  i;  and  the  question  necessarily  meets  us,  What  does  this 
tlpi]vr\  or  (KOTaXXayiJ  mean  ?  Is  it  a  change  in  the  attitude  of  man  to 
God  or  in  that  of  God  to  man  ?  Many  high  authorities  contend 
that  it  is  only  a  change  in  the  attitude  of  man  to  God. 

Thus  Lightfoot  on  Col.  i.  ai :  *  (xSpovs,  "  hostile  to  God,"  as  the 
opposite  of  d7r»jXXorp«i))Li«'ovs,  not  "  hateful  to  God,"  as  it  is  taken 
by  some.  The  active  rather  than  the  passive  sense  of  (x^pov<:  is 
required  by  the  context,  which  (as  commonly  in  the  N.  T.)  speaks 
of  the  sinner  as  reconciled  to  God,  not  of  God  as  reconciled  to  the 
sinner  ...  It  is  the  mind  of  man,  not  the  mind  of  God,  which  must 
undergo  a  change,  that  a  reunion  may  be  effected.' 

Similarly  Westcott  on  i  Jo.  ii.  2  (p.  85) :  '  Such  phrases  as  "  pro- 
pitiating God"  and  "God  being  reconciled"  are  foreign  to  the 
language  of  the  N.  T.  Man  is  reconciled  (2  Cor.  v.  18  ff.;  Rom. 
V.  lof.).  There  is  "propitiation"  in  the  matter  of  sin  or  of  the 
sinner.  The  love  of  God  is  the  same  throughout;  but  Me 
"  cannot "  in  virtue  of  His  very  nature  welcome  the  impenitent 
and  sinful:  and  more  than  this,  He  "cannot"  treat  sin  as  if  it 
were  not  sin.  This  being  so,  the  iKaanos,  when  it  is  applied  to  the 
sinner,  so  to  speak,  neutralizes  the  sin.'  [A  difficult  and  it  may  be 
thought  hardly  tenable  distinction.  The  relation  of  God  to  sin  is 
nea  merely  passive  Uit  active ;  and  the  term  ikaoiios  is  properly 


V5- 


130  EPISTLE   TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  12-14 

used  in  reference  to  a  personal  agent.  Some  oru  is  *  propitiated ' ; 
and  who  can  this  be,  but  God  ?] 

The  same  idea  is  a  characteristic  feature  in  the  theology  of 
Ritschl  (Recht.  u.  Vers.  ii.  230  ff.). 

No  doubt  there  are  passages  where  ix^pot  denotes  the  hostility 
and  KaroKKayri  the  reconciliation  of  man  to  God ;  but  taking  the 
language  of  Scripture  as  a  whole,  it  does  not  seem  that  it  can  be 
explained  in  this  way. 

(i)  In  the  immediate  context  we  have  tt]v  KaraWayiiv  fKa^ofuv, 
implying  that  the  reconciliation  comes  to  man  from  the  side  of 
God,  and  is  not  directly  due  to  any  act  of  his  own.  We  may 
compare  the  familiar  x"P'f  'f<"  *^PV'^>  to  which  is  usually  added  dwA 
etoii  in  the  greetings  of  the  Epistles. 

(a)    In  Rom,  xL  28  €;(^po«  is  opposed  to  ayainjTol,  where  dyamjroi 

mutt  be  passive  ('  beloved  by  God '),  so  that  it  is  hardly  possible 
that  t'xdpoi  can  be  entirely  active,  though  it  may  be  partly  so :  it 
seems  to  correspond  to  our  word  '  hostile.' 

(3)  It  is  difficult  to  dissociate  such  words  as  IXao-r^ptov  (Rom.  iii. 
25),  iXa<r/xdr  (i  Jo.  ii.  2)  from  the  idea  of  propitiating  a  person. 

(4)  There  is  frequent  mention  of  the  Anger  of  God  as  directed 
against  sinners,  not  merely  at  the  end  of  all  things,  but  also  at  this 
present  time  (Rom.  i.  18,  &c.).  When  that  Anger  ceases  to  be 
so  directed  there  is  surely  a  change  (or  what  we  should  be  com- 
pelled to  call  a  change)  on  the  part  of  God  as  well  as  of  man. 

We  infer  that  the  natural  explanation  of  the  passages  which 
speak  of  enmity  and  reconciliation  between  God  and  man  is  that 
they  are  not  on  one  side  only,  but  are  mutual. 

At  the  same  time  we  must  be  well  aware  that  this  is  only  our 
imperfect  way  of  speaking  :  Kari  avdpairov  Xry»  must  be  written 
large  over  all  such  language.  We  are  obliged  to  use  anthropo- 
morphic expressions  which  imply  a  change  of  attitude  or  relation 
on  the  part  of  God  as  well  as  of  man ;  and  yet  in  some  way  which 
we  cannot  wholly  fathom  we  may  believe  that  with  Him  there  is 
'  no  variableness,  neither  shado*   of  turning.' 


THE  FAT.Ti  OF  ADAM  AND  THE  WOBK  OF  CHBIST. 

V.  12-14.  What  a  contrast  does  this  last  description 
suggest  between  the  Fall  of  Adam  and  the  justifying  Work 
of  Christ !  There  is  indeed  parallelism  as  well  as  contrast. 
For  it  is  true  that  as  Christ  brought  righteousness  and  life^ 
so  Adams  Fall  brought  sin  and  death.  If  death  prevailed 
throughout  the  tre-Mosaic  period,  that  could  not  b*  due  solely 


V.  12-14.)  ADAM  AND  CHRIST  I31 

to  the  act  of  i  \ose  who  died.  Death  is  the  punishment  of 
sin;  but  they  had  not  sinned  against  law  as  Adam  had. 
The  true  cause  then  was  not  their  own  sin,  but  Adam's ; 
whose  fall  thus  had  ^'consequences  extending  beyond  itself  like 
the  redeeming  act  of  Christ. 

"  The  description  just  gven  of  the  Work  of  Christ,  first  justifying 
and  reconciling  the  sinner,  and  then  holding  out  to  him  the  hope 
of  final  salvation,  brings  out  forcibly  the  contrast  between  the 
two  great  Representatives  of  I^umanity — Adam  and  Christ.  The 
act  by  which  Adam  fell,  like  th*  act  of  Christ,  had  a  far-reaching 
effect  upon  mankind.  Through  his  Fall,  Sin,  as  an  active  principle, 
first  gained  an  entrance  among  the  himian  race ;  and  Sin  brought 
with  it  the  doom  of  (physical)  Death.  So  that,  through  Adam's 
Fall,  death  pervaded  the  whole  body  of  his  descendants,  because 
they  one  and  all  fell  into  sin,  and  died  as  he  had  died.  "  When 
I  say  '  they  sinned '  I  must  insert  a  word  of  qualification.  In  the 
strict  sense  of  full  responsibility,  they  could  not  sin:  for  that 
attaches  only  to  sin  against  law,  and  they  had  as  yet  no  law  to 
sin  against.  "Yet  they  suffered  the  full  penalty  of  sin.  All 
through  the  long  period  which  intervened  between  Adam  and  the 
Mosaic  legislation,  the  tyiant  Death  held  tway;  even  though 
those  who  died  had  not  sinned,  as  Adam  had,  in  violation  of 
an  express  command.  This  proved  that  something  deeper  was 
at  work :  and  that  could  only  be  the  transmitted  eflfect  of  Adam's 
sin.  It  is  this  transmitted  effect  of  a  Jtingle  act  which  made  Adam 
a  type  of  the  coming  Messiah. 

12.  Bid  toGto:  points  to  the  logical  connexion  with  what  pre- 
cedes. It  has  been  argued,  at  somewhat  disproportionate  length, 
whether  this  refers  to  ver.  ii  only  (Fricke,  De  Mente  dogmatica  loci 
Paulini  ad  Rom.  v.  la  sq.,  Lipsiae,  1880,  Mey.,  Philippi,  Beet),  or 
to  vv.  9-n  (Fri.),  or  to  w.  i-ii  (Rothe,  Hofmann),  or  to  the 
whole  discussion  from  i.  17  onwards  (Beng.,  Schott,  Reiche, 
Riickert).  We  cannot  lay  down  so  precisely  how  much  was 
consciously  present  to  the  mind  of  the  Apostle.  But  as  the  lead- 
ing idea  of  the  whole  section  is  the  comparison  of  the  train  of 
consequences  flowing  from  the  Fall  of  Adam  with  the  train  of 
consequences  flowing  from  the  Justifying  Act  of  Christ,  it  seems 
natural  to  include  at  least  as  much  as  contains  a  brief  outline  0/ 
that  work,  L  e.  as  far  as  w.  i-i  i. 

E  a 


I3»  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  1% 

That  being  so,  we  cannot  with  Fricke  infer  from  ver.  1 1  that. 
St.  Paul  only  wishes  to  compare  the  result  of  deafk  in  the  one 
case  with  that  of  li/e  in  the  other.  Fricke,  however,  is  right  in 
saying  that  his  object  is  not  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  death 
or  sin.  The  origin  of  both  is  assumed,  not  propounded  as 
anything  new.  This  is  important  for  the  understanding  of  the 
bearings  of  the  passage.  All  turns  on  this,  that  the  effects  ol 
Adam's  Fall  were  transmitted  to  his  descendants;  but  St.  Paul 
nowhere  says  how  they  were  transmitted ;  nor  does  he  even  define 
in  precise  terms  wAa/  is  transmitted.  He  seems,  however,  to  mean 
(r)  the  liability  to  sin,  (2)  the  liability  to  die  as  the  punishment 
of  sin. 

wairep.  The  Structure  of  the  paragraph  introduced  by  this 
word  (to  the  end  of  ver.  14)  is  broken  in  a  manner  very  character- 
istic of  St.  Paul.     He  begins  the  sentence  as  if  he  intended  it  to 

run  :  Sxrntp  81  <«/if  dv6pd)nov  if  ifiapria  tit  t6v  Koafiov  rta^Xdc,  xai  ith 
TTJt  ifxapriat  6  Gavaros  .  .  .  oi/T«  Koi  di  ivos  avOpamov  if  iiKaunrwr) 
elcrr}\dt,  Kol  dia  rrjs  diKaioainnji  fj  fwij.  But  the  WOrds  iia  rrjt  Afiap' 
rias  6  davarot  bring  up  the  subject  which  St.  Paul  is  intending  to 
raise,  viz.  the  connexion  of  sin  and  death  with  the  Fall  of  Adam : 
he  goes  off  upon  this,  and  when  he  has  discussed  it  sufficiently 
for  his  purpose,  he  does  not  return  to  the  form  of  sentence 
which  he  had  originally  planned,  but  he  attaches  the  clause 
comparing  Christ  to  Adam  by  a  relative  (or  «Vrj  rvnos  toC  fUKkovrot) 
to  the  end  of  his  digression:  and  so  what  should  have  been  the 
main  apodosis  of  the  whole  paragraph  becomes  merely  sub- 
ordinate. It  is  a  want  of  finish  in  style  due  to  eagerness  and 
intensity  of  thought;  but  the  meaning  is  quite  dear.  Compare 
the  construction  of  ii.  i6;  iii.  8,  26. 

^  dfiapria:  Sin,  as  so  often,  is  personified:  it  is  a  malignant 
force  let  loose  among  mankind :  see  the  fuller  note  at  the  end  (A 
the  chapter. 

CIS  rhv  KiSo-fior  ciarjXOe :  a  phrase  which,  though  it  reminds  as 
specially  of  St.  John  (John  i.  9,  10;  iii.  17,  19;  vi.  14;  ix.  5, 
39;  X.  36,  &c.),  is  not  peculiar  to  him  (cf.  i  Tim.  i.  15;  Heb. 
X.  5).  St.  John  and  the  author  of  Heb.  apply  it  to  the  personal 
incarnation  of  the  Logos;  here  it  is  applied  to  the  impersonal 
self-diffusion  of  evil. 

i  Bdvaros.  Some  have  taken  this  to  mean  *  eternal  death,' 
chiefly  on  the  ground  of  w.  17,  ai,  where  it  seems  to  be  opposed 
to  '  eternal  life.'  Oltr.  is  the  most  strenuous  supporter  of  this 
view.  But  it  is  far  simpler  and  better  to  take  it  of  'physical 
death'  :  because  (i)  this  is  clearly  the  sense  of  ver.  14;  (2)  it  is 
the  sense  of  Gen.  ii.  17;  iii.  19;  to  which  St.  Paul  is  evidently 
alluding.  It  seems  probable  that  even  in  w.  17,  ai,  the  idea 
is  iv  the  first  instance  physical.     But  St.  Paul  does  not  draw  the 


V.  IS.]  ADAM  AND  CHRIST  I33 

marked  distinction  that  we  do  between  this  life  and  the  life  to 
come.  The  mention  of  death  in  any  sense  is  enough  to  suggest 
the  contrast  of  life  in  all  its  senses.  The  Apostle's  argument 
is  that  the  gift  of  life  and  the  benefits  wrought  by  Christ  are 
altogether  wider  in  their  range  than  the  penalty  of  Adam's  sin  ; 
{mtptiTfftLavtvatv  9  X"/"*  Js  the  keynote  of  the  passage.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  two  sides  of  the  antith  sis  should  exactly  cor- 
respond. In  each  particular  the  scale  weighs  heavily  in  favom 
of  the  Christian. 

The  Western  text  (D  E  F  G,  &c.)  omits  this  word  altogether.  Aug. 
makes  the  subject  of  the  vb.  not  death  but  sin  :  he  accuses  the  Pelao-ian? 
of  inserting  (the  second)  6  Q&varos. 

SiT]\d€K:  contains  the  force  of  distribution;  'made  its  way  to 
each  individual  member  of  the  race ' :  KuBdirfp  ns  KXripot  narpoi 
ita^as  t'lrl  roiis  ryyovovs  ('  like  a  father's  inheritance  divided  among 
his  children'),  Euthym.-Zig. 

i^'  <^.  Though  this  expression  has  been  much  fought  over, 
there  can  now  be  little  doubt  that  the  true  rendering  is  *  because.' 
(1)  Orig.  followed  by  the  Latin  commentators  Aug.  and  Ambrstr. 
took  the  rel.  as  masc.  with  antecedent  'Aidp :  '  in  whom,'  i.  e.  '  in 
Adam.'  But  in  that  case  (i)  ('ni  would  not  be  the  right  preposi- 
tion; (ii)  ^  would  be  too  far  removed  from  its  antecedent. 
(1)  Some  Greeks  quoted  by  Photius  also  took  the  rel.  as  masc. 
with  antecedent  Bdyaros :  '  in  which,'  i.  e.  '  in  death,'  which  is 
even  more  impossible.  (3)  Some  moderns,  taking  w  as  neut.  and 
the  whole  phrase  as  equivalent  to  a  conjunction,  have  tried  to 
get  out  of  it  other  meanings  than  '  because.'  So  (i)  '  in  like 
manner  as'  ('all  died,  jus^  as  all  sinned'),  Rothe,  De  Wette; 
(ii)  (s=  i<f>  iaoy)  '  in  proportion  as,'  '  in  so  far  as '  ('  all  died,  in  so 
faros  all  sinned'),  Ewald,  Tholuck  (ed.  1856)  and  others.  But 
the  Greek  will  not  bear  either  of  these  senses.  (4)  ^  is  rightly 
taken  as  neut.,  and  the  phrase  «0'  «  as  conj.=' because'  ('for 
that'  AV.  and  RV.)  by  Theodrt.  Phot.  Euthym.-Zig.  and  the  mass 
of  modem  commentators.  This  is  in  agreement  with  Greek 
usage  and  is  alone  satisfactory. 

k<f>  ^  in  dassical  writen  more  often  means  'on  condition  that*:  cf. 
Thuc.  i.  113  (TTTOcSat  toiTjadfifvoi  i(p'  ^  rovr  dybpas  KOfiiovvrai,  'on  con- 
dition of  getting  back  their  prisoners,*  &c.  The  plnral  kip'  oh  is  more 
common,  as  in  u.v6'  &y,  i^  S>v,  dt'  Siv.  In  N.  T.  the  phrase  occurs  three 
times,  always  as  it  would  seem ^/ropterta  quod,  'because':  cf.  a  Cor.  v.  4 
vrivd{p\it»  Papovufvor  i<f>'  y  ov  OeKoptv  iKSvaaaOm  k.t.X.;  Phil.  iii.  la 
if'  ^  Koi  KaT(\'fi<p9-yv  vit6  X.  1.  (where  'seeing  that*  or  'because*  appears 
to  be  the  more  probable  rendering).  So  Phavorinns  (d.  1537;  a  lexico- 
grapher of  the  Renaissance  period,  who  incorporated  the  contents  of  oldei 
works,  but  here  seems  to  be  inventing  his  examples)  «</>'  <p  dyri  tov  di6ri 
kiyovaty  'KrriKoi,  otov  1^'^  rifw  Kkom^v  •l^yAwm  ('becaoae  you  GOn» 
Bitted  the  theft  *)  «.r.X. 


134  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  12.  18 

!«►*  (S  Ttdvns  ^jfiapror.  Here  lies  the  crux  of  this  d'fficult  pas- 
sage. In  what  sense  did  'all  sin  ?  (i)  Man/,  inchiding  even 
Meyer,  though  explaining  t(f>'  ^  as  neut.  rather  than  masc,  yet 
give  to  the  sentence  as  a  whole  a  meaning  practically  equivalent 
to  that  which  it  has  if  the  antecedent  of  «  is  'AW/u.  Beni^el  has 
g^ven  this  classical  expression :  omms  peccarunt,  Adamo  pucante, 
'  all  sinned  implicitly  in  the  sin  of  Adam,'  his  sin  involved  theirs. 
The  objection  is  that  the  words  supplied  are  far  too  important 
to  be  left  to  be  unrlerstood.  If  St.  Paul  had  meant  this,  why  did 
he  not  say  so?  The  insertion  of  iv  *A5d/i  would  have  removed 
all  ambiguity.  (2)  The  Greek  commentators  for  the  most  part 
supply  nothing,  but  take  tl^aprov  in  its  usual  sense :  *  all  sinned 
in  their  own  persons,  and  on  their  own  initiative.'     So  Euthym.- 

Zig.  :     hiOTi    ivavT*s    rjfiapToy    aKoXovdrjaavTis    r«   npoTTaropi    Kara    yt  to 

d/xapr^o-at.  The  objection  to  this  is  that  it  destroys  the  parallelism 
between  Adam  and  Christ :  besides,  St.  Paul  goes  on  to  show 
in  the  same  breath  that  they  could  not  sin  in  the  same  way  that 
Adam  did.  Sin  implies  law ;  but  Adam's  descendants  had  no  law 
(3)  It  is  possible  however  to  take  ^p.apTov  xw  its  ordinary  sen< 
without  severing  the  connexion  between  Adam  and  his  posterity. 
If  they  sinned,  their  sin  was  due  in  part  to  tendencies  inherited 
from  Adam.  So  practically  Stuart,  Fricke,  Weiss,  &c.  There 
still  remains  the  difRculty  as  to  the  connexion  of  this  clause  with 
what  follows :  see  the  next  note. 

It  is  a  farther  argument  in  favoar  of  the  view  taken  above  that  •  very 

similar  sequence  of  thought  is  found  in  4  Ezra.  Immediately  after  laying 
down  that  the  sin  of  Adam's  descendants  is  due  to  that  malignitas  radicis 
which  they  inherit  from  their  forefather  (see  the  passage  quoted  in  full 
below),  the  writer  goes  on  to  describe  this  sin  as  a  repetition  of  Adam's  due 
to  the  fact  that  ihey  too  had  within  them  the  cor  malig>ium  as  he  had  :  Et 
deliquerunt  qui  habitabant  civitaUm,  in  omnibus  facientes  sicut  fecit  Adam 
et  omnes  gemrationts  eius,  utebantur  enim  et  if  si  corde  maligna  (4  Ezra  iii. 
25  f.  .  Other  passages  may  be  quoted  both  from  4  Ezra  and  from  Apoc. 
Baruch.  which  lay  stress  at  once  on  the  inherited  tendency  to  sin  and  on  the 
freedom  of  choice  in  those  who  give  way  to  it :  see  the  fuller  note  below. 

13.  axpi  Y^P  •'V®"  ••T-X.  At  first  sight  this  seems  to  give  a 
reason  for  just  the  opposite  of  what  is  wanted :  it  seems  to  prove 
not  that  irdvT€t  fipLapTov,  but  that  however  much  men  might  sin 
they  had  not  at  least  the  full  guilt  of  sin.  This  is  really  what 
St.  Paul  aims  at  proving.  There  is  an  under-current  all  through 
the  passage,  showing  how  there  was  something  else  at  work 
besides  the  guilt  of  individuals.  That  '  something '  is  the  effect 
of  Adam's  Fall.  The  Fall  gave  the  predisposition  to  sin;  and 
the  Fall  linked  together  sin  and  death. 

St.  Paul  would  not  say  that  the  absence  of  written  law  did 
away  with  all  responsibility.  He  has  already  laid  down  most 
distinctly  that   Gentiles,  though  without  such  written  law,  havt 


V.  18,  14.]  ADAM  AND  CHRIST  I55 

law  enough  to  be  judged  by  (iL  12-16);  and  Jews  b<fore  the 
time  of  Moses  were  only  in  the  position  of  Gentiles.  But  the 
degree  of  their  guilt  could  not  be  the  same  either  as  that  of 
Adam,  or  as  that  of  the  Jews  after  the  Mosaic  legislation. 
Perhaps  it  might  be  regarded  as  an  open  question  whether,  apart 
from  Adam,  pre-Mosaic  sins  would  have  been  punishable  with 
death.  What  St.  Paul  wishes  to  bring  out  is  that  prior  to  the 
giving  of  the  Law,  the  fate  of  mankind,  to  an  extent  and  in  a  way 
which  he  does  not  define,  was  directly  traceable  to  Adam's  Fall. 

i^apria  hk  ouk  ^XXoyciTai  k.t.K.  The  thought  is  one  which 
had  evidently  taken  strong  hold  on  St.  Paul:  see  on  iv.  15,  and 
the  parallels  there  quoted. 

AXoycirai :  *  brought  into  account '  (Gif.),  as  of  an  entry  made 
in  a  ledger.  The  word  also  occurs  in  Philem.  18,  where  see 
Lightfoot's  note. 

iXXoyfiTtu  (or  irXo^f !>«)  K«  B  C  D  E  F  G  K  L  P,  See,  iXXoyarai  K<: 
ivtXoytiro  ti*,  iWo-^aro  A  52  108;  imputabatur  YxAg.  codd.  AvixhrstT,  al. 
The  imperf.  appears  to  b«  a  (mistaken)  correction  due  to  the  context. 
Al  to  the  form  of  the  verb:  *A.Xi>-ya  is  decisively  attested  in  Philem.  18  ; 
bat  it  would  not  follow  that  the  same  form  was  used  here  where  St.  Paul 
is  employing  a  different  amanuensis  :  however,  as  the  tendency  of  the  MSS. 
if  rather  to  obliterate  vernacular  forms  than  to  introduce  them,  there  is 
perhaps  a  slight  balance  of  probability  in  favour  ot  fWoydrai :  see  Westcott 
and  Hort,  JVofet  tn  Orthography  in  Appendix  to  Introd.  p.  166  ff. 

14.  IpaaiXeotTti'  6  GdcoTos.  St.  Paul  appeals  to  the  universal 
prevalence  of  death,  which  is  personified,  as  sin  had  been  just 
before,  under  the  figure  of  a  grim  tyrant,  in  proof  of  the  mis- 
chief wrought  by  Adam's  Fall.  Nothing  but  the  Fall  could 
account  for  that  universal  prevalence.  Sin  and  death  had  their 
beginnings  together,  and  they  were  propagated  side  by  side. 

On  the  certainty  and  universality  of  Death,  regarded  as  a  penalty,  comp. 
Seneca,  Nat.  Quatst.  ii.  59  l.odem  citiiis  tardiusve  veniendum  est  .  .  .  In 
tmtus  tonstituttim  est  capitak  supplidum  et  quidem  constitutione  iustissima. 
nam  quod  maptum  soiet  esse  solatium  extrema  passuris,  quorum  eadem 
eausa  et  sors  eadem  est.  Similarly  Philo  speaks  of  tov  avfupva  vtKpbv  fiixwv, 
ri  aaifia  {De  Gigant.  3  ;  ed,  Mang.  i.  264).  Elsewhere  he  goes  a  step  further 
and  asserts  5t«  ttavrl  -f€vvrjTu  .  .  .  avficpvii  rb  dfj-apriytip.  For  parallels  in 
4  Ezra  and  ApM.  Baruck.  see  below. 

iiri  Tovs  jiT]  afiapTTjo-avTas.  A  number  of  authorities,  mostly  Latn  Fathers, 
but  including  also  the  important  mari^in  of  Cod.  67  with  three  other  cursives, 
the  first  hand  of  d,  and  the  Greek  of  Orig.  at  least  once,  omit  the  negative, 
making  the  reign  of  death  extend  only  over  those  who  had  sinned  after  the 
likeness  of  Adam.  So  Orig.-lat.  (Rufinus)  repeatedly  and  expressly,  Latin 
MSS.  known  to  Aug.,  the  'older  Latin  MSS.'  according  to  Ambrstr.  and 
Sedulius.  The  comment  of  Ambrstr.  is  interesting  as  showing  a  certain  grasp 
of  critical  principles,  though  it  was  difficult  for  any  one  in  those  days  to  have 
•nfiicient  command  of  MSS.  to  know  the  real  state  of  the  evidence.  Ambrstr 
prefers  in  this  case  the  evidence  of  the  Latin  MSS.,  because  those  with  which 
he  is  acquainted  are  older  than  the  Greek,  and  represent,  as  he  thinks,  ajs 
older  form  of  text.     He  claims  that  thi^  fonit  ha»  the  support  of  TeJtollian 


136  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  14. 

Cyprian  and  Victorinns — a  statement  which  we  are  not  at  present  able  to 
verify-  He  accouats  for  the  Greek  reading  by  the  usual  theory  of  heretical 
corruption.  There  is  a  similar  question  of  the  insertion  or  omission  of  a 
negative  in  Rom.  iv.  19  (q.  v.  ,  Gal.  ii.  5.  In  two  out  of  the  three  cases  the 
Western  text  omits  the  negative,  but  in  ch.  iv.  19  it  inserts  it. 

TVTTOs  (tvtttcu)  :  (i)  the  'impression'  left  by  a  sharp  blow  (tAt  tvwop 
rwv  fiXaiv  John  xx.  35).  in  particular  the  'stamp'  stmok  by  a  die;  (a) 
inasmuch  as  such  a  stamp  bears  the  figure  on  the  face  of  the  die,  '  ropy,* 
'figure,*  or  '  representation  ';  (3)  by  a  common  transition  from  effect  to  caoae, 
'mould,'  'pattern,'  'exemplar';  (4)  hence  in  the  special  sense  of  the  word 
type,  whicn  we  have  adopted  from  the  Greek  of  the  N.  T.,  '  an  event  or 
person  in  historr  corresponding  in  certain  characteristic  features  to  another 
event  or  person.  That  which  comes  first  in  order  of  time  is  properly  the 
type,  that  which  comes  afterwards  the  antitype  {avTirvvoi  1  Pet.  iii.  ai). 
These  correspondences  form  a  part  of  the  Divine  economy  of  revelation :  fee 
esp.  Cheyue,  Iiaiak,  ii.  170  ff.  1,  Essay  III,  '  On  the  Christian  Element  in  th« 
Book  of  Isaiah '). 

Tou  jiAXoKTos.  (i)  The  entirely  personal  nature  of  the  whole 
comparison  prevents  us  from  taking  roC  |4«XX.  as  neut.  =  '  that 
which  was  to  come '  (Beng.,  Oltramare).  If  St  Paul  had 
intended  this,  he  would  have  written  mv  ^tXXovroc  a\.i>vot.  (a) 
Neither  is  it  probable  that  we  have  here  a  direct  allusion  to  the 
Rabbinical  designation  of  the  Messiah  as  i  d«w-»pot  or  i  firxarot 
'A8a/i  (i  Cor.  XV.  45,  47).  If  St,  Paul  had  intended  this,  he 
would  have  written  tov  fx(k\atn-ot  'Abdft..  (3)  The  context  makes 
it  clear  enough  who  is  intended  The  first  representative  of 
the  human  race  as  such  prefigured  its  second  Great  Repre- 
sentative, whose  coming  lay  in  the  future :  this  is  sufficiently 
brought  out  by  the  expression  'of  Him  who  was  to  be.'  6 
HfXXup  thus  approximates  in  meaning  to  6  ipx6fi(vct  (Matt  xi. 
3;  Luke  vii.  19;  Heb.  x.  37),  wliich  however  appears  not  to 
have  been,  as  it  is  sometimes  regarded,  a  standing  designation 
for  the  Messiah  *.  In  any  case  toO  fifKXomos  =  '  Him  who  was  to 
come'  when  Adam  fell,  not  'who  is  (still)  to  come'  (Fri.  De  W.). 


Tke  Effects  of  Adam's  Fall  in  Jrufish  Theology. 

Three  points  come  out  clearly  in  these  verses :  ( i )  the  Fall  of 
Adam  brought  death  not  only  to  Adam  himself  but  to  his 
descendants ;  (2)  the  Fall  of  Adam  also  broughi  sin  and  the 
tendency  to  sin ;  (3)  and  yet  in  spite  of  this  the  individual  does 
not  lose  his  responsibility.  All  three  propositions  receive  seme 
partial  illustration  from  Jewish  sources,  though  the  Talmud  does 

*  '  The  designation  "  The  Coming  One  "  {Habbd),  though  a  most  truthfa] 
expression  of  Jewish  expectancy,  was  aot  one  ordinaiily  used  of  the  Meanalk' 
Edersheim.  L.  ^  T.i.  p.  668 


V.  12-14.]  ADAM  AND  CHRIST  137 

not  seem  to  have  had  any  consistent  doctrine  on  the  subject 
Dr.  Edersheim  says  expressly :  *  So  far  as  their  opinions  can  be 
gathered  from  their  writings  the  great  doctrines  of  Original  Sin  and 
of  the  sinfulness  of  our  whole  nature,  were  not  held  by  the  ancient 
Rabbis'  ij^ife  and  Times,  &c.  i.  165).  Still  there  are  approxima- 
tions, especially  in  the  writings  on  which  we  have  drawn  so  freeJv 
akeady,  the  Fourth  Book  of  Ezra  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch. 

(i)  The  evidence  i>  itrongest  as  to  the  connexion  between  Adam's  fin  and 
the  introdnction  of  death.  '  There  were,'  says  Dr.  Edersheim,  *  two  divergent 
opinions — the  on*  ascribing  death  to  personal,  the  other  to  Adam's  gnilt' 
(0f.  cit.  i.  166).  It  is  however  allowed  that  the  latter  view  greatly  pre- 
ponderated. Traces  of  it  are  found  as  far  back  as  the  Sapiential  Books: 
e.g.  Wisd.  iL  93  f.  o  %t6t  ixriaty  ror  avOpaiitov  km'  cup6apffiif  .  .  .  ip06yqi  Si 
itafiokov  B&varoi  tlaijKOtv  ds  rdv  it6afiov,  where  we  note  the  occurrence  ol 
St.  Paul's  phrase;  Ecclns.  xiv.  34  [33]  61*  airiiy  (sc.  r^f  ywaiKa)  iiro6vri- 
0KOfitv  viiVTK.  The  doctrine  is  also  abundantly  recognized  in  4  Ezra  and 
Apet.  Banteh. :  4  Ezr.  iii.  7  tt  huie  (sc.  Adame)  mandasti  diligere  viam 
tuam,  tt  fraeterivit  tarn ;  tt  statim  instituisti  in  turn  mortem  tt  in 
naiionihu  ( =  gtntrationibus)  eius :  Afoc.  Baruth.  xvii.  3  (Adam)  morttm 
tUtulit  tt  abscidit  annos  ttrum  qui  ab  $0  geniti  fuerunt :  ibid,  xxiii.  4 
Quando  feccavit  Adam  tt  dtcrttafuit  mors  centra  eos  qui  gigntrentur, 

(a)  We  are  warned  (by  Dr.  Edersheim  in  Sf.  Comm.  Apecr.  ad  lec^  not 
to  identify  the  statement  of  Ecclus.  xxv.  24  [33]  diro  "^waiKhi  dpx4  &/uifrrias 
with  the  N.  T.  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  :  still  it  points  in  that  direction ;  we 
have  just  seen  that  the  writer  deduces  from  Eve  the  death  of  all  mankind, 
and  in  like  manner  he  also  seems  to  deduce  from  her  {dnd  yw.)  the  initium 
ptccandi.  More  explicit  are  4  Ezra  iii.  2 1  f.  Cor  tnim  malignum  baiulans 
primus  Adam  transgressus  tt  vittus  est,  sed  tt  tmnes  qui  de  to  mati  sunt  : 
tt  facta  tst  permatiens  infirmitas,  et  lex  cum  corde  populi,  cum  malignitate 
radicis ;  et  discessit  quod  bonum  est,  et  mansit  malignum :  ibid.  iv.  30 
Quoniam  granum  seminis  mali  seminatum  est  in  corde  Adam  ab  initio,  et 
quantum  impietatis  generavit  usque  nunc,  et  generat  usque  dum  veniat  area : 
ibid.  vii.  48  (118)  0  tu  quid  fecisti  Adam?  Si  enini  tii  peccasti,noit  est 
foetus  solius  tuus  casus,  sed  et  nostrum  qui  ex  te  advenimus. 

(3)  And  yet  along  with  all  this  we  have  the  explicit  assertion  of  responsi- 
bility on  the  part  of  all  who  sin.  This  appears  in  the  passage  quoted  above 
on  ver.  13  (ad  fin^.  To  the  same  eflect  are  4  Ezr.  viii.  50  f.  Non  enim 
AUissimus  volutt  hominem  disperdi,  sed  ipsi  qui  creati  sunt  coinquinaverunt 
uemen  eius  qui  fecit  eos :  ibid.  ix.  1 1  qui  fastidierunt  legem  meam  cum  adhtu 
trant  hadentes  liberiatem.  But  the  classical  passage  is  Apoc.  Baruch. 
liv.  15,  19  Si  tnim  Adam  prior  peccavit,  et  attulit  mortem  super  omnes 
immaturam  ;  ttd  etiam  illi  qui  ex  et  nati  sunt,  unusquisqut  ex  eis  praepa- 
ravit  animae  suae  tormentum  futurum:  tt  iterum  unusquisque  tx  tis 
tlegit  sibi  gloriam  futuram  .  .  .  Non  est  ergo  Adam  causa,  nisi  animat  sucu 
tantum;  mos  vero  unusquisque  fuit  animae  suae  Adam. 

The  teaching  of  these  passages  does  not  really  conflict  with  that  of  the 
Talmud.  The  latter  is  thus  summarised  by  Weber  {Altsyn.  Theol.  p.  ai6)  : 
*By  the  Fall  man  came  under  a  curse,  is  guilty  of  death,  and  his  right 
relation  to  God  is  rendered  difEcnlt.  More  than  this  cannot  be  said.  Sin, 
to  which  the  bent  and  leaning  had  already  been  planted  in  man  by  creation, 
had  become  a  fact ;  the  "  evil  impulse  "  (  =  cer  malignum)  gained  the  mastery 
over  mankind,  who  can  only  resist  it  by  the  greatest  efTorts ;  before  the  Fall 
it  had  had  power  over  him,  but  no  sudi  ascendancy  ( Uebermacht)^  Henca 
when  the  same  writer  says  a  little  further  oa  that  according  to  the  Rabbis 
^there  ia  such  a  thing  at  transmission  of  guilt,  but  not  inch  a  thing  as  tr«n» 


158  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [V.  16-21 

miision  of  Mn  {Em  gibt  tine  EritchuU,  abtr  Mtu  Erbtunde)'  the  negative 
proposition  is  due  chieflj  to  the  clearness  with  which  the  Rabbit  (like  Af9C, 
Bmruik.)  insist  upon  free-will  and  direct  Indiyidual  responsibility. 

It  seems  to  us  a  mistake  to  place  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  in  too 
marked  opposition  to  this.  There  is  no  fundamental  inconsistency 
between  his  views  and  tliose  of  his  contemporaries.  He  does  not 
indeed  either  affirm  or  deny  the  existence  of  the  cor  malignum 
before  the  Fall,  nor  does  he  use  such  explicit  lanc:uage  as  not 
vero  unusquisque  fuit  animae  suae  Adam:  on  the  other  hand  he 
does  define  more  exactly  than  the  Rabbis  the  nature  of  human 
responsibility  both  under  the  Law  (ch.  vii.  7  flf.)  and  without  it 
(ii.  12-15).  2ut  here,  as  elsewhere  in  dealing  with  this  mysterious 
subject  (see  p.  267  below),  he  practically  contents  himself  with 
leaving  the  two  complementary  truths  side  by  side.  Man  inherits 
his  nature ;  and  yet  he  must  not  be  allowed  to  shift  responsibility 
from  himself:  there  is  that  within  him  by  virtue  of  which  he  is  free 
to  choose ;  and  on  that  freedom  of  choice  he  must  stand  or  £&1L 


ADAM  Ain>  CHBIST. 

▼.  16-21.  So  far  the  parallelism:  hut  note  also  thi 
contrast.  How  superior  t/ie  Work  of  Christ f  (i)  How 
different  in  quality:  the  one  act  all  sin,  the  other  act  all 
bounty  or  grcue  !  (ver,  15).  (2)  How  different  in  quantity, 
or  mode  of  working :  one  act  tainting  tJte  whole  race  with 
sin.  and  a  multitude  of  sins  collected  together  in  one  only  to 
be  forgiven  !  (ver.  16).  (3)  How  different  and  surpassing  in 
its  whole  character  and  consequences :  a  reign  of  Death  and 
a  reign  of  Life !  (ver.  17).  Summarizing:  Adam's  Fall 
brought  sin :  Law  increased  it:  but  the  Work  of  Grace  has 
cancelled,  and  mori  tlian  cancelled,  the  effect  of  Law  (w. 
18-ai). 

"In  both  cases  there  is  a  transmission  of  effects:  but  there 
the  resemblance  ends.  In  all  else  the  false  step  (or  Fall,  as  we 
call  it)  of  Adam  and  the  free  gift  of  God's  bounty  are  most  unlike. 
The  fall  of  tha^  one  representative  man  entailed  death  upon  the 
many  members  ol  the  race  to  which  he  belonged.  Can  we  then 
be  surprised  if  an  act  of  such  different  quality — the  free  unearned 
bvour  of  God.  and  the  fi^ift  of  righteousness  bestowed  through 


V.  16-21.]  ADAM   AND  CHRIST  139 

the  kindness  of  that  other  Representative  Man,  Jesus  Messiah 
— should  have  not  only  cancelled  the  effect  of  the  Fall,  but 
also  brought  further  blessings  to  the  whole  race  ?  "There  is 
a  second  difference  between  this  boon  bestowed  through  Christ 
and  the  ill  effects  of  one  man's  sinning.  The  sentence  pro- 
nounced upon  Adam  took  its  rise  in  the  act  of  a  single  man,  and 
had  for  its  result  a  sweeping  verdict  of  condemnation.  But  the 
gift  bestowed  by  God  inverts  this  procedure.  It  took  its  rise  in 
many  faults,  and  it  had  for  its  result  a  verdict  declaring  sinners 
righteous.  "Yet  once  more.  Through  the  single  fault  of  the  one 
man  Adam  the  tyrant  Death  began  its  reign  through  that  one 
sole  agency.  Much  more  then  shall  the  Christian  recipients  of 
that  overflowing  kindness  and  of  the  inestimable  gift  of  righteous- 
ness— much  more  shall  they  also  reign,  not  in  dtath  but  in  life, 
through  the  sole  agency  of  Jesus  Messiah. 

**  To  sum  up.  On  one  side  we  have  the  cause,  a  single  Fall ; 
and  the  effect,  extending  to  all  men,  condemnation.  On  the  other 
side  we  have  as  cause,  a  single  absolving  act ;  and  as  effect,  also 
extending  to  all,  a  like  process  of  absolution,  carrying  wilh  it  life. 
*'For  as  through  the  disobedience  of  the  one  man  Adam  all 
mankind  were  placed  in  the  class  and  condition  of  'sinners,'  so 
through  the  obedience  (shown  in  His  Death  upon  the  Cross)  of  the 
one  man,  Christ,  the  whole  multitude  of  believers  shall  be  placed 
in  the  class  and  condition  of  *  righteous.'  *•  Then  Law  came  in, 
as  a  sort  of  '  afterthought,'  a  secondary  and  subordinate  stage, 
in  the  Divine  plan,  causing  the  indefinite  multiplication  of  sins 
which,  like  the  lapse  or  fall  of  Adam,  were  breaches  of  express 
command.  Multiplied  indeed  they  were,  but  only  with  the  result 
of  calling  forth  a  still  more  abundant  stream  of  pardoning  grace. 
'*  Hitherto  Sin  has  sat  enthroned  in  a  kingdom  of  the  dead ; 
its  subjects  have  been  sunk  in  moral  and  spiritual  death.  But  this 
has  been  permitted  only  in  order  that  the  Grace  or  Goodwill  of 
God  might  also  set  up  its  throne  over  a  people  fitted  for  its  sway 
by  the  gift  of  righteousness,  and  therefore  destined  not  for  death 
but  for  eternal  life — through  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Messiah,  our 
Lord. 

16.  irapdiTTUfta :  lit.  'a  slip  or  fall  tideways,'  'a  false  step,' 
'  a  lapse ' :  hence  metaph.  in  a  sense  not  very  dissimilai  to  iMOfnijitm 


I40  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  16,  1ft 

(which  is  prop,  'missing  a  mark').  It  is  however  appropriate 
that  wapijrr.  should  be  used  for  a  'fall'  or  first  deflection  from 
uprightness,  just  as  aftdpr.  is  used  of  the  failure  of  efforts  towards 
recovery.     On  the  word  see  Trench,  Syn.  p.  237  f. 

Tou  iv6^ :  '  the  one  man,'  t.  *.  Adam. 

01  iroXXoi :  *  the  many,'  practically  =  ndvrat  ver.  la ;  ndvrat  dvBpiy 
wovs  in  ver.  18,  'all  mankind.'  It  is  very  misleading  to  translate 
as  AV.,  ignoring  the  article,  if  '  through  the  offence  of  one,  many 
be  dead,  by  the  obedience  of  oru  shall  many  be  made  righteous.' 
Redemption  like  the  Fall  proceeds  not  from  any  chance  member  of 
the  human  race,  and  its  effects  extend  not  only  to  '  many '  but  to 
'  all ' — to  '  all,'  that  is  potentially,  if  they  embrace  the  redemption 
which  is  offered  them. 

See  Bentley,  quoted  bv  Lft.  Ot$  Revitim,  p.  97, '  By  this  accorate  Terdon 
lome  hurtful  mistakes  about  partial  redrmption  and  absolute  reprobation 
had  been  happily  prevented.  Our  English  readers  had  then  seen,  what 
several  of  the  Fathers  saw  and  testified,  that  ol  voXXoi,  the  many,  in  an  anti- 
thesis to  tk4  otu,  are  equivalent  to  vdvrfs,  all,  in  ver.  ta,  and  conaprehend  the 
whole  multitude,  the  entire  species  of  mankind,  exclusiv*  only  of  tht  0m$* 

iroXX^  fidXXor.  What  we  know  of  the  character  of  God  as  dis- 
played in  Christ  makes  us  more  certain  of  the  good  result  than  of 
the  evil. 

lij  Swpcdl  is  more  fully  defined  below  (ver.  17)  as  4  *«»p«^  ^ 
8iKaio(rvvt)s :  the  gift  is  the  condition  of  righteousness  into  which 
the  sinner  enters.  8a>ptdy  '  boon,'  like  8apov  contrasted  with  dd/ta, 
is  reserved  for  the  highest  and  best  gifts;  so  Philo,  Leg.  AUeg.  iii 
70  ffKfxurtP  fuytdovs  rtXtiatu  iya6iv  brfKovatv  (Lft.  ReV.  p.  77)  i  ^omp^ 
also  the  ascending  scale  of  expression  in  Jas.  i.  17. 

iv  x<^iTi  goes  closely  with  ^  b»pta.  In  classical  Greek  we  should 
have  had  the  art.  9  <V  x<^P*^*>  ^^^  ^^  Hellenistic  Greek  a  qualifying 
phrase  is  attached  to  a  subst.  without  repetition  of  the  art.  Mey. 
however  and  some  others  (including  Lid.)  separate  «»  x'^P"*  from  4 
btiptd  and  connect  it  with  intpiaatvat. 

xiptt  it  mort  often  applied  to  God  the  Father,  and  is  exhibited  in  the 
whole  scheme  of  salvation  As  applied  to  Christ  it  is  (i)  that  active  favour 
towards  mankind  which  moved  Him  to  intervene  for  their  salvation  (of.  esp. 
s  Cor.  viii.  9) ;  (a)  the  same  active  favour  shown  to  the  individual  by  th« 
Fatiier  and  the  Son  conjointly  (Rom.  L  7  q.  v.). 

16.  The  absence  of  verbs  is  another  mark  of  compressed  anti- 
thetic style.  With  the  first  clause  we  may  supply  *<ttI,  with  the 
second  ey«V«To  :  '  And  not  as  through  one  man's  sinning,  so  is  the 
boon.  For  the  judgement  sprang  from  one  to  condemnation,  bnt 
the  free  gift  sprang  from  many  trespasses  (and  ended  in)  a  declara- 
tion of  righteousness.'  In  the  one  case  there  is  expansion  out- 
wards, from  one  to  many :  in  the  other  case  there  is  contracti<» 


F.  16-18.]  ADAM  AND  CHRIST  I41 

Inwards;  the  movement  originates  with  many  sins  which  are  all 

embraced  in  a  single  sentence  of  absolution. 

SiKai'u/io :  usually  the  decision,  decree,  or  ordinance  by  which 
a  thing  is  declared  iUatov  (that  which  gives  a  thing  the  force  of 
•right');  here  the  decision  or  sentence  by  which  persons  are 
declared  iUaiot.  The  sense  is  determined  by  the  antithesis  to  Kara- 
Kpifia,  iiKaiwfia  bears  to  diKaiaxTis  the  relation  of  an  act  completed 
to  an  act  in  process  (see  p.  31  -rwA). 

17.  iroXXw  fxaXXor.  Here  the  a  fortiori  argument  lies  in  the 
nature  of  the  two  contrasted  forces :  God's  grace  must  be  more 
powerful  in  its  working  than  man's  sin. 

i4jr  TTcpiao-eiai' .  .  .  ttjs  SwpeSs  rfjs  8iKOio<r«Ji't]s  Xafji(3<ii/orres.  Every 
term  here  points  to  that  gift  of  righteousness  here  described  as 
something  objective  and  external  to  the  man  himself,  not  wrought 
within  him  but  coming  to  him,  imputed  not  infused.  It  has  its 
source  in  the  overflow  of  God's  free  favour ;  it  is  a  gift  which  man 
receives:  see  pp.  25,  30 f.,  36  above. 

^aaiXeuaouo-i.  The  metaphor  is  present  to  St.  Paul's  mind; 
and  having  used  it  just  before  of  the  prevalence  of  Death,  he 
naturally  recurs  to  it  in  the  sense  more  familiar  to  a  Christian  of 
his  share  in  the  Messianic  blessings,  of  which  the  foremost  was 
a  heightened  and  glorified  vitality,  that  '  eternal  life '  which  is  his 
already  in  germ. 

%\.h  Tou  ivh%  'It](too  Xpiorou.  The  8*0  here  covers  the  whole  media- 
tion of  the  Son  in  reference  to  man  :  it  is  through  His  Death  that  the 
sinner  on  embracing  Christianity  enters  upon  the  state  of  righteous- 
ness, and  through  the  union  with  Him  which  follows  that  his  whole 
being  is  vitalized  and  transfigured  through  time  into  eternity. 

18.  This  and  the  three  following  verses,  introduced  by  the 
strongly  illative  particles  opo  ouv,  sum  up  the  results  of  the  whole 
comparison  between  Adam  and  Christ :  the  resemblance  is  set 
forth  in  w.  18,  19;  the  difference  and  vast  preponderance  of  the 
scale  of  blessing  in  w.  20,  21. 

Again  we  have  a  condensed  antithesis — the  great  salient  strokes 
confronting  each  other  without  formal  construction  :  origin,  extent, 
issue,  alike  parallel  and  alike  opposed.  '  As  then,  through  one  lapse, 
to  all  men,  unto  condemnation — so  also,  through  one  justifying  act, 
to  all  men,  unto  justification  of  life.'  There  are  two  difl&culties, 
the  interpretation  of  fit  ivbs  diKaicoftaTos  and  of  SiKaiaxriv  ^»^r. 

8(*  Ifos  8iKaiup,aT0$.  Does  itKaiayia  here  mean  the  same  thing 
as  in  ver.  16?  If  so,  it  is  the  sentence  by  which  God  declares 
men  righteous  on  account  of  Christ's  Death.  Or  is  it  the  merit 
of  that  Death  itself,  the  '  righteous  act,'  or  vnaKofi,  of  Christ  ?  A 
number  of  scholars  (Holsten,  Va.  Lips.  Lid.)  argue  that  it  must 
be  the  latter  in  order  to  correspond  with  it*  iv6s  napanTii>(jMTos.  So 
too   £uthjrm.-Z3g.   it    ^v6r  dtttMunaros  rov  X.    ryy    Sitpaif    duuuoiripqf 


14a  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  18,  1». 

trwTrXijponKOTot.  But  it  seems  better,  with  Mey.  Gif.  and  others,  to 
give  the  same  sense  to  diKaiana  as  in  ver.  16.  We  saw  that  there 
the  sense  was  fixed  by  Karaicpifxa,  which  is  repeated  in  the  present 
verse.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  doubtful  whether  8iKa(a)na  can  quite 
z='a  righteous  act.'  God's  sentence  and  the  act  of  Christ  are  so 
inseparable  that  the  one  may  be  used  in  the  antithesis  as  naturally 
as  the  other. 

It  is  best  also  to  follow  the  natural  construction  of  the  Greek 
and  make  <w>i  neut.  in  agreement  with  Sikoiw/x.  (Mey.-W.  Va. 
Gif.)  rather  than  masc.  (Lips.). 

SiKaiuair  lanjs.  '  Life '  is  both  the  immediate  and  ultimate  result 
of  that  state  of  things  into  which  the  Christian  enters  when  he  is 
declared  *  righteous  '  or  receives  his  sentence  of  absolution. 

10.  Si&  rqs  irapaKOTJs  .  .  .  8id  -rfjs  u-iraK0T)9.  It  is  natural  that 
this  aspect  of  the  Fall  as  napaxoT]  should  be  made  prominent  in 
a  context  which  lays  stress  on  the  effect  of  law  or  express  command 
in  enhancing  the  heinousness  of  sin.  It  is  natural  also  that  in 
antithesis  to  this  there  should  be  singled  out  in  the  Death  of 
Christ  its  special  aspect  as  virwcor} :  cf.  Heb.  v.  8,  9 ;  Matt.  xxvi. 
39  ;  Phil.  ii.  8.  On  the  word  napaKoi)  ('  a  failing  to  hear,'  incuria, 
ind  thence  inobedientid)  see  Trench,  Syn.  p.  234. 

KaT€crT<£9T]crai'  .  .  .  KaraaTaOiiCTOKToi:  '  were  constituted '  .  .  .  'shall 
be  constituted.'  But  in  what  sense  '  constituted '  ?  The  Greek 
word  has  the  same  ambiguity  as  the  English.  If  we  define  further, 
the  definition  must  come  from  the  context.  Here  the  context  is 
sufficiently  clear  :  it  covers  on  the  one  hand  the  whole  result  of 
Adam's  Fall  for  his  descendants  prior  to  and  independently  of  their 
own  deliberate  act  of  sin;  and  it  covers  on  the  other  hand  the 
whole  result  of  the  redeeming  act  of  Christ  so  far  as  that  too  is 
accomplished  objectively  and  apart  from  active  concurrence  on  the 
part  of  the  Christian.  The  fut.  KaTa<rta6r\<yovTM  has  reference  not  to 
the  Last  Judgement  but  to  future  generations  of  Christians  ;  to  all 
m  tact  who  reap  the  benefit  of  the  Cross. 

When  St.  Paul  wrote  in  Gal.  ii.  15  ij/itfi  <^v<rc(  lowSoToi,  «ai  (Ak  i(  i9vm 

AitapToi\oi,  he  implied  (speaking  for  the  moment  from  the  stand-point  of  his 
countrymen)  that  Gentile*  would  be  regarded  as  <pv<ru  dixapraiXol:  they 
belonged  '  to  the  class '  of  linners ;  just  as  we  might  speak  of  a  child  as 
belonging  to  the  '  criminal  class '  before  it  had  done  anything  by  its  own  act 
to  justify  its  place  in  that  class.  The  meaning  of  the  text  is  very  similar : 
so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  effects  of  the  Fall  of  Adam  it  must  be  interpreted 
by  w.  13-14;  and  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  effects  of  the  Death  of  Christ 
it  is  parallel  to  w.  i,  2  iiKaiuffevrfs  niv  [Ik  martois]  flprjvrjv  (xofic  (con- 
tained in  lx'*'M**')  "■p^s  ''■^•'  ©tor  Sici  Tov  Kvp'tov  ^ficuv  *I.  X.,  St'  ot  koI  t})w 
vfoaa-^tTj^v  iaxv'^^'^l^f^  *'*  ''^*'  X'^P"'  ^  ?  tcf^rfKafifv.  For  the  use  of  KaOi- 
oraaOcu  there  is  a  good  parallel  in  Xen.  Mem.  ii.  i.  9  'Eyu  ovv  rovt  ftiv 
0ov\o^l^vovs  iToKXa  irfiayfiaTa  lx<"'  ■  •  ■  **s  Tovs  apxiKcin  icaraaTTjaaifii,  where 
Koraar.  =  tit  rovt  dpxntoiit  rdrrotuv  {sup.)  and  iftavriif  rirrm  tb  ro^ 
fiovfjitiyovs  {it^.). 


V.  20,  9J  J  ADAM  AND  CHPIST  I43 

20.  iropeifffjXOei' :  •  come  in  to  the  side  of  a  state  <rf  things  already 
existing.'  St.  Paul  regarded  Law  as  a  *  parenthesis '  in  the  Divine 
plan  :  it  did  not  begin  until  Moses,  and  it  ended  with  Christ 
(cp.  iv.  13-16 ;  X.  4).  Here  however  he  has  in  view  only  its  late 
beginning :  it  it  a  sort  of '  after-thought '  (see  the  Paraphrase). 

'  Why  did  he  not  say  the  Law  was  gtven,  bot  fAs  Law  tnttrtd  by  the  way  t 
It  was  to  show  that  the  need  of  it  was  temporary  and  not  absolute  or 
claiming  precedence '  {vpoaicatpov  aiirov  Seim^t  r^v  XP*^*""  ttvao',  mi  ei 
gvplar  oiiSi  irpoijyovixivtjy)  Chrys. 

Zvo  irXeo»'(£(rT).  For  the  force  of  iva  comp.  «lt  ri  tlvai  mimvt  apano- 
Xayfjrovs  L  SO :  the  multiplication  of  transgression  is  not  the  first 
and  direct  object  of  law,  but  its  second  and  contingent  object :  law 
only  multiplies  trangression  because  it  is  broken  and  so  converts 
into  deliberate  sin  acts  which  would  not  have  had  that  character  if 
they  had  not  been  so  expressly  forbidden. 

Td  Si  Iva  ivravOa  ovk  alrioXoyias  irdXir  dXA*  iitP&atin  Iffriv.     (M  fA^  hi 

TovTO  iS60T}  tva  irA.eordffjj,  dAA'  (569r)  jxiy  &aT(  nuSiaai  itai  Ay«\ttv  t6  irap6r 
meuixa'  f((0r]  Si  rovvavriw,  ov  rrapcl  rifv  rod  vd/iov  <pv(Tiv,  dXXd  irapa  TJ^r  r&v 
6cf  a^tVouy  ^a$vfxiav  (Chrys.) :  a  note  wLich  shows  that  the  ancients  were  quite 
aware  of  the  ecbatic  sense  of  Iva  (see  on  xL  11). 

vXcoctiaii,  as  Va.  remarks,  might  be  transitive,  but  is  more 
probably  intransitive,  because  of  fnXfovaatv  fi  afiapr.  which  follows. 

ri  irapdiirTufia :  seems  expressly  chosen  in  order  to  remind  us 
that  all  sins  done  in  defiance  of  a  definite  command  are  as  such 
rrpetitions  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 

21.  iv  Tw  Bavdrtf.  Sin  reigns,  as  it  were,  over  a  charnel-house ; 
the  subjects  of  its  empire  are  men  as  good  as  dead,  dead  in  every 
sense  of  the  word,  dead  morally  and  spiritually,  and  therefore 
doomed  to  die  physically  (see  on  vi.  8  below). 

8id  SiKotoCTuinijs.  The  reign  of  grace  or  Divine  favour  is  made 
possible  by  the  gift  of  righteousness  which  the  Christian  owes  to 
the  mediation  of  Christ,  and  which  opens  up  for  him  the  prospect 
of  eternal  life. 


St.  PauVs  Conception  of  Sin  and  of  the  Fall. 

St  Paul  uses  Greek  words,  and  some  of  those  which  he  uses 
cannot  be  said  to  have  essentially  a  different  meaning  from  that 
which  attached  to  them  on  their  native  soil ;  and  yet  the  diflferent 
relations  in  which  they  are  placed  and  the  diflferent  associations 
which  gather  round  them,  convey  what  is  substantially  a  diflferent 
idea  to  the  mind. 

The  word  ifuipria  with  its  cognates  is  a  case  in  point.  The 
corresponding  term  ia  HelH'ew  has  much  the  same  original  sense 


144  EPISILE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  12-21 

of 'missing  a  mark/  Both  words  are  used  with  a  higher  and  a 
lower  meaning;  and  in  both  the  higher  meaning  belongs  to  the 
sphere  of  religion.  So  that  the  difference  between  them  is  not  in 
the  words  themselves  but  in  the  spirit  of  the  religions  with  which 
they  are  connected. 

This  appears  upon  the  face  of  it  from  the  mere  bulk  of  literary 
usage.  In  classical  Greek  AfxapTia,  dixapravftv  are  common  enough 
in  the  lighter  senses  of ' missing  an  aim,'  of  'error  in  judgement  or 
opinion';  in  the  graver  sense  of  serious  wrong-doing  they  are 
rare.  When  we  turn  to  the  Bible,  the  LXX  and  the  N.T. 
alike,  this  proportion  is  utterly  reversed.  The  words  denote  nearly 
always  religious  wrong-doing,  and  from  being  in  the  background 
they  come  strongly  to  the  front ;  so  much  so  that  in  the  Concord 
ance  to  the  LXX  this  group  of  words  fills  some  thirteen  columns, 
averaging  not  much  less  than  eighty  instances  to  the  column. 

This  fact  alone  tells  its  own  story.  And  along  with  it  we  must 
take  the  deepening  of  meaning  which  the  words  have  undergone 
through  the  theological  context  in  which  they  are  placed.  '  How  can 
I  do  this  great  wickedness,  and  sin  against  God  ? '  (Gen.  xxxix.  9). 
Against  Thee,  Thee  only,  have  I  sinned,  and  done  that  which  is 
evil  in  Thy  sight '  (Ps.  li.  4).  '  Behold,  all  souls  are  Mine ;  as  the 
soul  of  the  father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  is  Mine :  the  soul 
that  sinneth,  it  shall  die '  (Ezek.  xviii.  4).  We  have  travelled  a  long 
way  from  Hellenic  religion  in  such  utterances  as  these. 

It  is  impossible  to  have  an  adequate  conception  of  sin  without 
an  adequate  conception  of  God.  The  Hebrew  in  general,  and 
St.  Paul  in  particular,  had  this ;  and  that  is  why  Sin  is  such  an 
intense  reality  to  them.  It  is  not  a  mere  defect,  the  coming  short 
of  an  ideal,  the  mark  of  an  imperfect  development.  It  is  some- 
thing more  than  a  negation ;  it  is  a  positive  quality,  calling  forth 
a  positive  reaction.  It  is  a  personal  offence  against  a  personal 
God.  It  is  an  injury  or  wound — if  the  reaction  which  it  involves 
may  be  described  in  such  human  terms  as  '  injury '  or  '  wound ' — 
directed  against  the  Holy  One  whose  love  is  incessantly  going  forth 
towards  man.  It  causes  an  esf  rangement,  a  deep  gulf  of  separation, 
between  God  and  man. 

The  guilt  of  sin  is  proportioned  to  the  extent  to  which  it  is 
conscious  and  deliberate.  Wrong  actions  done  without  the  know- 
ledge that  they  are  wrong  are  not  imputed  to  the  doer  [ifiapria  di  ow 
(Woyr'^m  fxff  Sptos  v6fiov  Rom.  v.  13:  cf.  iv.  1 5).  But  as  a  matter 
of  fact  few  or  none  can  take  advantage  of  this  because  everywhere — 
even  among  the  heathen — there  is  some  knoM'ledge  of  God  and  of 
right  and  wrong  (Rom.  i.  19 f.;  ii.  12,  14  (.),  and  the  extent  of  that 
knowledge  determines  the  degree  of  guilt.  Where  there  is  a  written 
law  like  that  of  the  Jews  stamped  with  Divine  authority,  the  guilt  is 
at  its  height.     But  this  is  but  the  climax  of  an  ascending  scale  io 


V.  12-21.]  ADAM  AND  CHRIST  XAg 

Which  the  heinousness  of  the  offence  is  proportioned  to  aidvantagej 

and  opportunities. 

Why  did  men  break  the  Law  ?  In  other  words,  Why  did  they 
sin?  When  the  act  of  sin  came  to  be  analyzed  it  was  found  to 
contain  three  elements.  Proximately  it  was  due  to  the  wicked  S 
impulses  ofhuman  nature.  The  Law  condemned  illicit  desires,  but 
men  had  such  desires  and  they  succumbed  to  them  (Rom.  vii. 
7  ff.).  The  reason  of  this  was  partly  a  certain  corruption  of 
human  nature  inherited  from  Adam.  The  corruption  alone  would 
not  have  been  enough  apart  from  the  consentient  will ;  neither 
would  the  will  have  been  so  acted  upon  if  it  had  not  been  foi 
the  inherited  corruption  (Rom.  v.  12-14).  But  there  was  yet  a  third  3 
element,  independent  of  both  these.  They  operated  through  the 
man  himself;  but  there  was  another  influence  which  operated  with- 
out him.  It  is  remarkable  how  St.  Paul  throughout  these  chapters, 
Rom.  V,  vi,  vii,  constantly  personifies  Sin  as  a  pernicious  and  deadly 
force  at  work  in  the  world,  not  dissimilar  in  kind  to  the  other  great 
counteracting  forces,  the  Incarnation  of  Christ  and  the  Gospel. 
Now  personifications  are  not  hke  dogmatic  definitions,  and  the 
personification  in  this  instance  does  not  always  bear  exactly  the 
same  meaning.  In  ch.  v,  when  it  is  said  that  '  Sin  entered  into  the 
world,'  the  general  term  '  Sin'  includes,  and  is  made  up  of,  the  sins 
of  individuals.  But  in  chaps,  vi  and  vii  the  personified  Sin  is  set 
over  against  the  individual,  and  expressly  distinguished  from  him. 
Sin  is  not  to  be  permitted  to  reign  within  the  body  (vi.  12);  the 
members  are  not  to  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  Sin  (vi.  1 3) ;  to 
Sin  the  man  is  enslaved  (vi.  6,  17,  20;  vii.  14),  and  from  Sin  he  is 
emancipated  (vi.  18,  22),  or  in  other  words,  it  is  to  Sin  that  he  dies 
(vi.  9,  11);  Sin  takes  up  its  abode  within  his  heart  (vii.  17,  20): 
it  works  upon  him,  using  the  commandment  as  its  instrument,  and 
so  is  fatal  to  him  (vii.  8,  11). 

In  all  this  the  usage  is  consistent :  a  clear  distinction  is  drawn 
at  once  between  the  will  and  the  bodily  impulses  which  act  upon 
the  will  and  a  sort  of  external  Power  which  makes  both  the  will  and 
the  impulses  subservient  to  it.  What  is  the  nature  of  this  Power  ? 
Is  it  personal  or  impersonal  ?  We  could  not  tell  from  this  particular 
context.  No  doubt  personal  attributes  and  functions  are  assigned 
to  it,  but  perhaps  only  figuratively  as  part  of  the  personification. 
To  answer  our  questions  we  shall  have  to  consider  the  teaching  of 
the  Apostle  elsewhere.  It  is  clear  enough  that,  like  the  rest  of  his 
countrymen  (see  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  p.  52  f.),  St.  Paul  did 
believe  in  a  personal  agency  of  Evil.  He  repeatedly  uses  the  per- 
sonal name  Satan ;  he  ascribes  to  him  not  only  mischief-making  in 
the  Church  (i  Thess.  ii.  18;  a  Cor.  ii.  11),  but  the  direct  tempta- 
tion of  individual  Christians  (i  Cor.  viL  5);  he  has  his  followers  on 
whom  he  is  sometimes  invited  to  wreak  his  will  (i  Cor.  v.  5; 


146  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  12-Sl. 

1  Tim.  i.  30) ;  supernatural  powers  of  deceiving  or  perverting  men 

are  attlibuted  to  him  (2  TheSS.  ii.  9  kot  ivipytiav  roi  ^arava  iv  rraaii 
ivudfifi    Koi    iTTjftdois    Koi    Ttpaai    ^tviovs :    cf.   2   Cor.  xi.   1 4).      The 

Power  of  Evil  does  not  stand  alone  but  has  at  its  disposal  a  whole 

army  of  subordinate  agents  [dpxai,  f^ovaiai,  KovnoKparoptt  roi  aKorovs 

TovTov  Eph.  vi.  la;  cf.  Col.  ii.  15).  There  is  indeed  a  whole 
hierarchy  of  evil  spirits  as  there  is  a  hierarchy  of  good  (Eph.  i.  21), 
and  Satan  has  a  court  and  a  kingdom  just  as  God  has.  He  is  '  the 
god  of  the  existing  age'  (6  6e6i  tov  atwvos  tovtov  2  Cor.  iv.  4),  and 
exercises  his  rule  till  the  final  triumph  of  the  Messiah  (2  Thess.  ii. 
8  f. ;  I  Cor.  xv.  24  f.). 

We  see  therefore  that  just  as  in  the  other  books  of  the  N.T. 
the  Gospels,  the  Apocalypse,  and  the  other  Apostolic  Epistles,  evil 
is  referred  to  a  personal  cause.  And  although  it  is  doubtless  true 
that  in  chaps,  vi,  vii,  where  St.  Paul  speaks  most  directly  of  the 
baleful  activity  of  Sin,  he  does  not  intend  to  lay  special  stress  on 
this ;  his  language  is  of  the  nature  of  personification  and  does  not 
necessarily  imply  a  person ;  yet,  when  we  take  it  in  connexion  with 
othei  language  elsewhere,  we  see  that  in  the  last  resort  he  would 
have  said  that  there  was  a  personal  agency  at  work.  It  is  at  least 
clear  that  he  is  speaking  of  an  influence  external  to  man,  and 
acting  upon  him  in  the  way  in  which  spiritual  forces  act. 

St.  PanI  regards  the  beginnings  of  tin  as  traceable  to  the  Fall  of  Adam. 
In  this  he  is  simply  following  the  account  in  Gen.  iii ;  and  the  question 
naturally  arises,  What  becomes  of  that  account  and  of  the  inferences  which 
St.  Paul  draws  from  it,  if  we  accept  the  view  which  is  pressed  upon  us  by 
the  comparative  study  of  religions  and  largely  adopted  by  modem  criticism, 
that  it  is  not  to  be  taken  as  a  literal  record  of  historical  fact,  but  as  the 
Hebrew  form  of  a  story  common  to  a  number  of  Oriental  peoples  and  going 
back  to  a  common  root  ?  When  we  speak  of  a  *  Hebrew  form '  of  this  story 
we  mean  a  form  shaped  and  moulded  by  those  principles  of  revelation  oi 
which  the  Hebrew  race  was  chosen  to  be  the  special  recipient.  From  this 
point  of  view  it  becomes  the  typical  and  summary  representation  of  a  series 
of  facts  which  no  discovery  of  flint  implements  and  half-calcined  bones  can 
ever  reproduce  for  us.  In  some  way  or  other  as  far  back  as  history  goes, 
and  we  may  believe  much  further,  there  has  been  implanted  in  the  human 
race  this  mysterious  seed  of  sin,  which  like  other  characteristics  of  the  race 
{s  capable  of  transmission.  The  tendency  to  sin  is  present  in  every  man  who 
is  born  into  the  world.  But  the  tendency  does  not  become  actual  sin  until 
It  takes  effect  in  defiance  of  an  express  command,  in  deliberate  disregard  of 
a  known  distinction  between  right  and  wrong.  How  men  came  to  be 
possessed  of  such  a  command,  by  what  process  they  arrived  at  the  conscious 
aistinction  of  right  and  wrong,  we  can  but  vaguely  speculate.  Whatever  it 
was  we  may  be  sure  that  it  could  not  have  been  presented  to  the  imagination 
of  primitive  peoples  otherwise  than  m  such  simple  forms  as  the  narratiTe 
assumes  in  the  Book  of  Genesis.  The  really  essential  truths  all  come  out  in 
that  narrative — the  recognition  of  the  Divine  Will,  the  act  of  disobedience 
to  the  Will  so  recognized,  the  perpetuation  of  the  tendency  to  such  di»- 
obedience ;  and  we  may  add  perhaps,  though  here  we  get  into  a  region  of 
■nrmises,  the  connexion  between  moral  evil  and  physical  decay,  for  the  surest 
pledge  of  immortality  is  the  relation  of  the  highest  part  of  us,  the  bo«1, 


V".  18-aLJ  ADAM   AND   CHRIST  147 

through  righteonsness  to  God.  These  salient  principles,  which  may  hav* 
been  dne  in  fact  to  a  process  of  gradual  accretion  through  long  periods,  are 
aaturally  and  in°  *  jiy  summed  up  as  a  group  of  single  incidents.  Their 
essential  character  is  not  altered,  and  in  the  interpretation  of  primitive 
beliefs  we  may  safely  remember  that  '  a  thousand  years  in  ♦^he  sight  of  God 
are  but  as  one  day.*  We  who  believe  in  Providence  and  who  believe  in  the 
•ctive  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  man,  may  well  also  believe  that 
the  tentative  gropings  of  the  primaeval  savage  were  assisted  and  guided  and 
so  led  up  to  definite  issues,  to  which  he  himself  perhaps  at  the  time  could 
baldly  give  a  name  but  which  he  learnt  to  call  '  sin  '  and  '  disobedience,'  and 
the  tendency  to  which  later  ages  also  saw  to  have  been  handed  on  from 
generation  to  generation  in  a  way  which  we  now  describe  as  '  heredity.'  It 
would  be  absurd  to  expect  the  language  of  modem  science  in  the  prophet 
who  first  incorporated  the  traditions  of  his  race  in  the  Sacred  Books  of  the 
Hebrews.  He  uses  the  only  kind  of  language  available  to  his  own  intelli- 
gence and  that  of  his  contemporaries.  But  if  the  language  which  he  does 
ose  is  from  that  point  of  view  abundantly  justified,  then  the  application  which 
St.  Paul  makes  of  it  is  equally  justified.  He  too  expresses  truth  throiigh 
symbols,  and  in  the  days  when  men  can  dispense  with  symbols  his  teaching 
may  be  obsolete,  but  not  before. 

Thf  need  for  an  Incarnation  and  the  need  for  an  Atonement  are  not 
dependent  upon  any  particular  presentation,  which  may  be  liable  to  cor- 
rection with  increasing  knowledge,  of  the  origin  of  sin.  They  rest,  not  on 
theory  or  on  anything  which  can  be  clothed  in  the  forms  of  theory,  but  on 
the  great  outstanding  facts  of  the  actual  sin  of  mankind  and  its  ravages. 
We  take  these  facts  as  we  see  them,  and  to  us  they  furnish  an  abundant 
explanation  of  all  that  God  has  done  to  counteract  them.  How  they  are  in 
their  turn  to  be  explained  may  well  form  a  legitimate  subject  for  curiosity, 
but  the  historical  side  of  it  at  least  has  but  a  very  slight  bearing  on  the 
interpretatioD  of  the  N.  T. 

History  of  the  Interpretation  of  the  Pauline  doctrini 

of  biKaiaxTii. 

In  order  to  complete  onr  commentary  on  the  earlier  portion  ol  the  Epistle, 
it  will  be  convenient  to  sum  up,  as  shortly  as  is  possible,  the  history  of  the 
doctrine  of  Justification,  so  far  as  it  is  definitely  connected  with  exegesis. 
To  pursue  the  subject  farther  than  that  would  be  beside  our  purpose ;  but  so 
much  is  necessary  since  the  exposition  of  the  preceding  chapters  has  been 
almost  entirely  from  one  point  of  view.  We  shall  of  course  be  obliged  to 
confine  ourselves  to  certain  typical  names. , 

Just  at  the  close  of  the  Apostolic  period  the  earliest  speculation  on  the  ' 
■object  of  Justification  meets  us.  Clement  of  Rome,  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  writes  clearly  guarding  against  any  practical  abuses  which  may 
arise  from  St.  Paul's  teaching.  He  has  before  him  the  three  writers  of  the 
N.  T.  who  deal  most  definitely  with  '  faith '  and  '  righteousness,*  and  fi-om 
them  constructs  a  system  of  life  and  action.  He  takes  the  typical  example, 
that  of  Abraham,  and  asks,  '  Wherefore  was  our  father  Abraham  blessed  f 
The  answer  combines  taat  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  James.  '  Was  it  not  because 
he  wrought  righteousness  and  truth  through  faith  ?'  (§  31  ovxl  ^imioavvqv  koX 
AXif&tiav  Sid  m'ffTttus  iroiiiaat ;).  And  throughout  there  is  the  same  co- 
ordination  of  different  types  of  doctrine.  '  We  are  justified  by  works  and  not 
by  words'  (§  30  (pyois  diKaio{iiJi(voi  nal  fifj  x6yois).  But  again  (§  33) ;  'And 
so  we,  having  been  called  through  His  will  in  Christ  Jesus,  are  not  justified 
throngh  ourselves  or  through  our  own  wisdom  or  understanding  or  piety  or 
works  which  we  wrought  in  holiness  of  heart,  but  through  faith  whereby  the 
Almighty  God  justified  all  men  that  have  been  from  Uke  beginning.'     Bat 


I4tl  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  12  21 

dangerous  thi*orie«  as  to  condnct,  which  arise  from  hoWing  tach  beliefs  is 
too  crade  a.  manner,  are  at  once  guarded  against  (§  33) :  '  What  then  most 
we  do,  brethren?  Must  we  idly  abstain  from  doing  good,  and  forsake  love? 
May  the  Master  never  allow  this  to  befall  us  at  least  .  .  .  We  have  seen  that 
all  the  righteous  were  adorned  in  good  works  .  .  .  Seeing  then  that  we  have 
this  pn.ttem,  let  ns  conform  ourselves  with  all  diligence  to  His  will ;  let  ns 
wiih  all  our  strength  work  the  work  of  righteousness.'  Clement  writes  as 
a  Christian  of  the  second  generation  who  ii  herits  the  teaching  and  phraseo- 
logy of  the  Apostolic  period.  '  Faith,'  *  Works,'  '  Righteousness,'  are  ideas 
which  have  become  part  of  the  Christian  life ;  the  need  of  definition  has  not 
arisen.  The  system  of  conduct  which  should  be  exhibited  as  the  result  of 
the  different  elements  of  this  life  is  clearly  realized.  What  St.  Paul  and 
St.  James  each  in  his  different  way  arrived  at  is  accomplished.  For  the 
exact  meaning  of  St.  Paul,  however,  and  the  understanding  of  his  teaching, 
we  get  no  aid.  Bishop  Lightfoot,  while  showing  how  Clement  'has  caught 
the  spirit  of  the  Pauline  teaching,'  yet  dwells,  and  dwells  rightly,  on  *  the 
dsfeot  in  the  dogmatic  statement.'     (See  Lightfoot,  Clement,  i.  96,  397.) 

The  question  of  Justification  never  became  a  subject  of  controversy  is  tht 
early  church,  and  consequently  the  Fathers  contented  themselves  as  Clement 
had  done  with  a  clear  practical  solution.  We  cannot  find  in  them  either  an 
answer  to  the  more  subtle  questions  which  later  theologians  have  asked  or 
much  assistance  as  to  the  exact  exegesis  of  St.  Paul's  language. 
Ongen.  How  little  Origen  had  grasped  some  points  in  St.  Paul's  thought  may  hi 

seen  by  his  comment  on  Rom.  iii.  20  JSx  operibus  i^tur  legU  quod  non  iusti- 
ficabitur  omnis  caro  in  conspectu  tint,  hoc  modo  intelligendum  puio :  quia 
tmnis  qui  caro  est  et  secundum  carnem  vivit,  non  potist  iustiJUari  «x 
l*ge  Dei,  sicut  et  alibi  dicit  idem  Apostolus,  quia  qui  in  came  sunt  Deo 
placere  non  possunt  (in  Rom.  iii.  6 ;  0pp.  torn.  vi.  194,  ed.  Lommatzsch). 
But  in  many  points  his  teaching  is  clear  and  strong.  All  Justification  is  by 
faith  alone  (iii.  9,  p.  2\1  et  dicit  sufficere  solius  jidei  iustificationem,  ita  ut 
tredens  quit  tantummodo  iustificetur,  etiamsi  nihil  ab  to  operit  fuerit 
ucpUtum).  It  is  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life,  and  is  represented  as 
the  bringing  to  an  end  of  a  state  of  enmity.  We  who  were  followers  of  the 
devil,  our  tyrant  and  enemy,  can  if  we  will  by  laying  down  his  arms  and 
taking  up  the  banner  of  Christ  have  peace  with  God,  a  peace  which  has 
been  purchased  for  us  by  the  blood  of  Christ  (iv.  8,  p.  285,  on  Rom.  v.  l). 
The  process  of  justification  is  clearly  one  of  'imputation '  (Jides  ad  iustUiam 
rtputetur  iv.  i,  p.  240,  on  Rom.  iv.  1-8),  and  is  identified  with  the  Gospel 
teaching  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  the  two  instances  of  it  which  are  quoted 
being  the  penitent  thief  and  the  woman  with  the  alabaster  box  of  ointment 
(Luke  vii.  37-42).  But  the  need  for  good  works  is  not  excluded:  sed 
fortassis  haec  aliquis  audiens  resolvatur  et  bene  agendi  negligentiam  capiat, 
ti  quidem  ad  iustificandum  fides  sola  sufficiat.  ad  quem  dicemus,  quia  post 
iustificationem  si  iniuste  quis  agat,  sine  dubio  iustificationis  gratiam  sprevit 
. .  .  indulgentia  namque  non  futurorum  sed  praeteritorum  criminun  datur 
fiii.  9,  p.  219,  on  Rom.  iii.  37,  28).  Faith  without  works  is  impossible 
Qiv.  I,  p.  234) :  rather  faith  is  the  root  from  which  they  spring :  non  ergo 
€x  operH/us  radix  iustitiae,  sed  ex  radice  iustitiae  fructus  operum  crescit, 
ilia  scilicet  radice  iustitiae,  qua  Deus  cucepto  fert  iustitiam  sine  operibus 
(iv.  I,  p.  241  ;  see  also  the  comment  on  Rom.  ii.  5,  6  in  ii.  4,  p.  Si).  We 
may  further  cote  that  in  the  comment  on  Rom.  i.  17  and  iii.  24  the  iustitia 
Dei  is  clearly  interpreted  as  the  Divine  attribute. 

The  same  criticism  which  was  passed  on  Origen  applies  in  an  equal 
or  even  greater  degree  to  Chrysostom.  Theologically  and  practically  the 
teaching  is  vigorous  and  well  balanced,  but  so  far  as  exegesis  is  con- 
cerned St.  Paul's  conception  and  point  of  view  are  not  understood-  The 
arcnmstances   which   had   created   these   conception*  no   longer   existed. 


V.  12-21.J  /IDAM  AND  CHRIST  149 

For  tiample,  commenting  on  Rom.  iL  to  he  writes:  *it  Is  upon  work* 

that  punishment  and  reward  depend,  not  upon  circumcision  or  uncircum- 
cision ' ;  making  a  distinction  which  the  Apostle  does  not  between  the 
moral  and  ceremonial  law.  The  historical  situation  is  clearly  grasped  and 
is  brought  out  very  well  at  the  beginning  of  Horn,  vii :  *  He  has  accused 
the  Gentiles,  he  has  accused  the  Jews ;  what  follows  to  mention  next  is  the 
righteousness  which  is  by  faith.  For  if  the  law  of  nature  availed  not,  and 
the  written  Law  was  of  no  advantage,  but  both  weighed  down  those  that 
used  them  not  aright,  and  made  it  plain  that  they  were  worthy  of  greater 
Dunishment,  then  t^e  salvation  which  is  by  grace  was  henceforth  necessary.' 
The  meaning  of  &«aio<Ti5vi7  9tov  is  well  brought  out  'The  declaring  of 
His  righteousness  is  not  only  that  He  is  Himself  righteous,  but  that  He 
doth  ^so  make  them  that  are  filled  with  the  putrefying  scars  of  sin  suddenly 
righteous'  {Horn.  viL  on  iiL  34,  25).  It  may  be  interesting  to  quote  the 
exposition  of  the  passage  which  follows.  He  explains  Sid  r^v  vapeaiv  tcDt 
vpoyv^ovdrojv  AfiapTrjuaTOiv  thus  :  Sjd  rffv  naptatv,  Tovriart  tt)!/  vtKpcatnv, 
oxiKfTi  ydp  vytias  f\iris  Jjy,  iW'  Siaittp  awjxa  wapa\v6iv  rfjs  dvouOfv  (Seiro 
Xfipoi,  ovTOf  Koi  f)  \tvx^  vfKpaiOeiaa,  giving  irdptan  the  meaning  of  '  para- 
lysis,' the  paralysis  of  spiritual  life  which  has  resulted  from  sin.  Generally 
StKai6<u  seems  clearly  to  be  taken  as  '  make  righteous,'  even  in  passages  i 
where  it  will  least  bear  such  an  interpretation ;  for  instance  on  iv.  5  (//om. 
viii.)  dvvarai  6  $t6s  ror  iv  daePda  PeffiwitoTa  rovrov  (^ai(pvrjs  ovxi  toXdafont 
l\tv6(pa>(jcu  n6vov,  dWA  Hoi  Siicaioy  irotTJaai,  .  .  ,  tl  yap  /xuKapios  oirait 
6  \a^uv  dcptmy  dir6  x<i/'«'''oy  TroXXy  (mWov  6  SiKaio/Ods,  and  on  iv.  25  (Horn. 
ix)  IttJ  ToiJTy  ydp  KoX  dneOave  leat  dviartj  Xva  Siitalovs  kpydarjrai.  Yet  his 
usage  is  not  consistent,  for  on  Rom.  viii.  33  he  writes :  '  He  does  not  say, 
it  is  God  that  forgave  our  sins,  but  what  is  much  greater  : — "  It  is  God  that 
justifieth."  For  when  the  Judge's  sentence  declares  us  just  {Sinaiovs  dwo- 
^ivfi),  and  such  a  judge  too,  what  signifieth  the  accuser?' 

No  purpose  would  be  served  by  entering  further  into  the  views  of  the  1 
Greek  commentntors ;  but  one  passage  of  Theodoret  may  be  quoted  as 
an  instance  of  the  way  in  which  all  the  fathers  connect  Justification  and 
Baptism.  On  Rom.  v.  i,  3  ^vid.  p.  53)  he  writes :  1)  nians  niv  vfj.iv  kbwpTj- 
aaro  rSiv  ap-aprrnxdrajv  t^»'  d(ptaiv  koX  dfiwfiovs  not  SiKaiovs  Sid  ttjs  tow  Xovrpov 
va\n.tyyfvfaiai  d-nf(pj)vt'  wpoa'ijim  Si  iifias  rijv  irpbt  rif  Oi<^v  yfytvrjuivriT 
^Kdrrtiv  tlfnjvrjv. 

To  sum  up  the  teaching  of  the  Greek  Fathers.  They  put  in  the  very 
front  of  everything,  the  Atonement  through  the  death  of  Christ,  without  as 
a  rule  elaborating  any  theory  concerning  it :  this  characteristic  we  find  from 
the  very  beginning:  it  is  as  strong  in  Ignatius  as  in  any  later  I'atner: 
they  all  think  that  it  is  by  faith  we  are  justified,  and  at  the  same  time  lay 
immense  stress  on  the  value,  but  not  the  merits,  of  good  works :  they  seem 
all  very  definitely  to  connect  Justification  with  Baptism  and  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  life,  so  much  so  indeed  that  as  is  well  known  even  the 
possibility  of  pardon  for  post-baptismal  sin  was  doubted  by  some  :  but  they 
have  no  theory  of  Justification  as  later  times  demand  it;  they  are  never  close 
and  exact  in  the  exegesis  of  St  Paul ;  and  they  are  without  the  historical 
conditions  which  would  enable  them  to  understand  his  great  antithesis  of 
•  Law'  and  '  Gospel,'  '  Faith  '  and  '  Works,'  '  Merit '  and  '  Grace.' 

The  opinions'  of  St  Augustine  are  of  much  greater  importan  e.  Althout^'h 
he  does  not  iipproach  the  question  from  the  same  point  of  view  as  tiie 
Reformation  theologians,  he  represents  the  source  from  which  came  the 
mediaeval  tendency  which  created  that  theology.  His  most  important 
expositions  are  those  contained  in  De  Spiritu  ct  Litera  and  In  Psalmum 
XXXI  Enarratio  II:  this  Psalm  he  describes  as  Psalmus  gratiae  Dei 
tt  iustificationis  nosirae  nullis  praecedentibus  meritis  nostris,  sed  prat' 
vmiente  nos  miserUordia  Domin$  Dti  mattri  .  . .     His  purpose  is  to  prove 


IJO  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 

as  against  any  form  of  Pelagianism  that  our  salvation  comes  from  no 
merits  of  our  own  but  only  from  the  Divine  grace  which  is  given  us. 
This  leads  to  three  main  characteristics  in  his  exposition  of  the  Romans, 
(i)  For,  first,  good  works  done  by  those  who  are  not  in  a  state  of  grace  are 
valneless  :  nemo  computet  txma  opera  sua  ante  fidem:  ubi  fidti  mmi  *ra* 
ionum  opus  ncn  erat  {Enarr^iio  §  4)  Hence  he  explains  Rom.  11.  5, 
isff.  of  works  done  not  i-  a  state  of  nature  but  of  grace.  In  iL  13  the 
Apostle  is  referring  to  t'^e  Gentiles  who  have  accepted  the  Gospel;  and  the 
'  Law  written  in  their  hearts '  is  the  law  not  of  the  O.T.  but  of  the  N.T. : 
he  natnralV^  compares  2  Cor.  iii.  3  and  Rom.  ii.  a6  {Dt  Sp.  €t  LU.  §§  44- 
49).  (2)  Then,  secondly,  St.  Augustine's  exposition  goes  on  somewhat 
different  lines  from  those  of  the  Apostle's  argument.  He  makes  the  whole 
aim  of  the  early  portion  of  the  Romans  to  be  the  proof  of  the  necessity  of 
grace.  Men  have  failed  without  grace,  and  it  is  only  by  meant  of  it  that 
they  can  do  any  works  which  are  acceptable  to  God.  Thb  from  one  point 
of  view  really  represents  St.  Paul's  argument,  from  another  it  is  very  much 
removed  from  it.  It  had  the  tendency  indeed  to  transfer  the  central  point 
in  connexion  with  human  salvation  from  the  atoning  death  of  Christ  accepted 
by  1  aith  to  the  gift  of  the  Divine  Grace  received  from  God.  Although  in 
this  relation,  as  often,  St.  Augustine's  exposition  is  c^eper  than  that  of  the 
Grrek  fathers,  it  leads  to  a  much  less  correct  interpretation.  (3)  For,  thirdly, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  leads  directly  to  the  doctrine  of '  infused '  grace. 
It  is  quite  true  that  Chrysostom  has  perhaps  even  moie  definitely  interpreted 
dt/caiovaOai  of  '  making  just,'  and  that  Augustine  in  one  place  admits  the 
possibility  of  interpreting  it  either  as  'making  just'  or  'reckoning  just' 
[De  Sp.  et  Lit.  §  45).  But  although  he  admits  the  two  interpretations  so 
far  as  concerns  the  words,  practically  his  whole  theory  is  that  of  an  infusion 
of  the  grace  of  faith  by  which  men  are  made  just.  Sc  in  his  comment  on 
i.  17  he  writes:  haec  est  iustitia  Dei,  quae  in  Testamtmte  Veitri  velata,  in 
Novo  revelatur:  quae  idea  iustitia  Dei  dicitur,  ^woi/ impertiendo  earn  iustof 
facit  {De  Sp.  et  Lit.  ^  18) :  and  again  :  credenti  inquit  in  eum  qui  iustificat 
impium  deputatur  fides  eius  ad  iustitiam.  si  iustificatur  impius  ex  impio 
fit  iustus  {Enarratio  §  6) :  so  rum  ttbi  Deus  reddit  debitam  foenam,  sttk 
donat  indebitam  gratiam :  so  De  Sp.  et  Lit.  \  36 :  ha*c  est  tusti/ia  Dei, 
quam  non  solum  docet  per  legis  praeceptum,  verum  tti*m  dot  fer  SpirUui 
donum. 
I  St.  Augustine's  theory  is  in  fact  thia ;  fiiith  is  a  gift  of  grace  wntch  ia- 
fased  into  men,  enables  thecs  to  produce  works  good  and  acceptable  to 
God.  The  point  of  view  is  clearly  not  that  of  St.  Paul,  and  it  is  the  sonroe  ol 
the  mediaeval  theory  of  grace  with  all  its  developments. 
Aquinas  This  theory  as  we  find  it  elaborated  in  the  Summa  ThepU^iat,  has  so  iar 

as  it  concerns  us  three  main  characteristics,  (i)  In  the  first  place  it  elaborates 
the  Augustinian  theory  of  Grace  instead  of  the  Pauline  theory  of  Justification. 
'.  iS  quite  clear  that  in  St.  Paul  x*^/"^  is  the  favour  of  God  to  man,  and  not 
*  gilt  given  by  Gi>d  to  mm;  but  gratia  in  St.  Thomas  has  evidently  this 
latti^r  signification :  cum  gratia  omnem  natura*  crtatae  fcuuUatem  excedat,  00 
quod  nihil  aliud  sit  quam  participano  quaedam  divinae  natureu  quae  omttem 
aliam  naturam  excedit  {Summa  Theologiat,  Prima  Secundae  Qn.  cxii.  i ).  So 
also :  donum  gratiae  .  .  .  gicUiae  infusio  . .  .  infundit  donum  graiiae  iustifi- 
cantis  (cxiii.  3).  (a^i  Secondly,  it  interprets  iustificare  to  '  make  just,'  and  in 
consequence  looks  upon  jvistincation  as  not  only  remissio  peccatorum,  but  also 
an  infusion  of  grace.  This  question  is  discussed  fiiUy  in  Qu.  cxiii.  Art.  a. 
The  conclusion  arrived  at  is:  quum  iustitiae  Dei  repugnei poenam dimtttert 
vigente  culpa,  nullius  autem  hominis  qualis  mode  nascitur,  reatut  poena* 
absque  gratia  tolli  queai ;  ad  culpcu  quoque  hominis  qualis  modo  nascitur^ 
Temissionem.  gratiae  infusionem  requiri  mani/estum  est.  The  primary  text 
Qo  which  this  conclusion  is  based  is  Rom.  iii.  24  iusti/itcUi  gratis  fn  grmtiam 


V.  ia-21.J  ADAM   AND  CHRIST  1$1 

ipHut,  which  is  therefore  clearly  interjireted  to  mean  '  madt  jt  st  by  an  inftision 
of  grace  ' ;  and  it  is  argued  that  the  effect  of  the  Divine  love  on  us  is  grace  by 
which  a  man  is  made  wo  "thy  of  eternal  life,  and  that  thereibie  lemissiou  of 
guilt  cannot  be  understood  unless  it  be  accompanied  by  the  infusion  oi  grace. 
(.^)  The  words  quoted  aboT";,  '  by  which  a  man  is  made  worthy  of  eternal 
lif  ■ '  idignus  vita  aeterna  int  'oduce  us  to  a  third  point  in  the  mediaev  al  th .  ory 
of  justification  :  indirectly  by  its  theory  of  merit  ae  co,,^  and  de  condi-^nt 
It  introduced  just  that  doctrine  of  merit  against  which  St.  Pnul  had  directed 
his  whole  system.  This  subject  is  worked  out  in  Qu.  cxiv,  where  it  is  argued 
(Art  I)  that  in  a  sense  we  can  deserve  something  from  God.  Although 
(Art  a)  a  man  cannot  deserve  life  eternal  in  a  state  of  nature,  yet  Art.  ^) 
after  justification  he  can :  Homo  meretur  uitam  aetemam  ex  condigno.  This 
is  supported  by  Rom.  viii.  17  sifilii  tt  haeredes.  it  being  argued  that  we  are 
sons  to  whom  is  owed  the  inheritance  ex  ipso  iure  adoptionis. 

However  defensible  as  a  complete  whole  the  system  of  the  Summa  maybe, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  nothing  so  complicated  can  be  grasped  by  the  po]  ular 
mind,  and  that  the  teaching  it  represents  led  to  a  wide  system  of  religious 
corruption  which  presented  a  very  definite  analogy  with  the  errors  which 
St.  Paul  combated ;  it  is  equally  clear  that  it  is  not  the  system  of  Justifica-  "\ 
tJon  put  forward  by  St.  Paul.  It  will  be  convenient  to  pass  on  directly  tc 
the  teaching  of  Luther,  and  to  put  it  in  direct  contrast  with  the  teaching  of 
Aquinas.  Although  it  arose  primarily  against  the  teaching  of  the  later 
Schoolmen,  whose  teaching,  especially  on  the  subject  of  merit  de  congruo  and 
de  condigno,  was  very  much  developed,  substantially  it  repi4sents  a  revolt 
against  the  whole  mediaeval  theory. 

Luther's  main  doctrines  were  the  following.  Through  the  law  man  learns  Loth^ 
his  sinfulness :  he  learns  to  say  with  the  prophet,  '  there  is  none  that  doeth 
good,  no  not  one.'  He  learns  his  own  weakness.  And  then  arises  the  cry : 
*  Who  can  give  me  any  help  ? '  Then  in  its  due  season  comes  the  saving 
word  of  the  Gospel,  'Be  of  good  cheer,  my  son,  thy  sins  are  forgiven. 
Believe  in  Jesus  Christ  who  was  crucified  for  thy  sins.'  This  is  the  beginning 
of  salvation ;  in  this  way  we  are  freed  from  sin,  we  are  justified  and  there  is 
given  unto  us  life  eternal,  not  on  account  of  our  own  merits  and  works,  but 
on  account  of  faith  by  which  we  approached  Christ  (Luther  on  Galatians 
ik  16;  0pp.  ed.  1554,  p.  308.) 

As  against  the  mediaeval  teaching  the  following  points  are  noticeable, 
(1)  In  the  first  place  Justification  is  quite  clearly  a  doctrine  of  'iustitia 
imputata' :  Deus  acctptat  seu  reputat  nos  iustos  solum  propter  Jidem  in 
Christum.  It  is  espei  ia!!)'  .'^tated  that  we  are  not  firee  from  sin.  As  long  as 
we  live  we  are  subject  to  tlie  stain  of  sin  :  only  our  sins  are  not  imputed  to 
as.  (2)  Secondly,  Luther  inherits  from  the  Schoolmen  the  distinction  of 
fides  informis  and  Jides  fonnata  cum  charitatt ;  but  whereas  the  f  had  con- 
sidered that  '\\.\i2&  fides formata  which  justifies,  with  him  it  \%fideii  informis. 
He  argued  that  if  it  were  necessary  that  laith  should  be  united  with  charity 
to  enable  it  to  justify,  then  it  is  no  longer  faith  alone  that  justifies,  but 
charity:  faith  becomes  useless  and  good  works  are  brought  in.  (3)  Thirdly, 
it  is  needless  to  point  out  that  he  attacks,  and  that  with  great  vigour,  all 
theories  of  merit  de  congruo  and  de  condigno.  He  describes  them  thus  :  talia 
monstra  portenta  et  horribiles  blasphemiae  debtbani  proponi  Turcis  et  ludaeis, 
uon  ecclesiae  Christi. 

The  teaching  of  the  Reformation  worked  a  complete  change  in  the  exegesis  CalTlA 
of  St.  Paul.  A  condition  of  practical  error  had  arisen,  clearly  in  many 
ways  resembling  that  which  St  Paul  combated,  and  hence  St.  Paul's  con- 
ceptions are  understood  better.  The  ablest  of  the  Reformation  commentaries 
is  certainly  that  of  Calvin  ;  and  the  change  produced  may  be  seen  most 
clearly  in  one  point.  The  attempt  that  had  been  made  to  evade  the  meaning 
of  St  Paul's  words  as  to  Law,  by  applying  them  only  to  the  ceremoniaJ 


l$»  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [V.  12-81. 

Law,  h«  entirely  brashes  away  (on  ill.  ao) ;  again,  he  Interprets  iustijiear*  u 

'to  reckon  just,'  in  accordance  with  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  and  the 
context  of  iv.  5.  The  scheme  of  Justification  as  laid  down  by  Luther  ii 
applied  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Epistle,  but  his  extravagant  language  is 
avoided.  The  distinction  ol  fides  informU  and  formata  is  condemned  as 
unreal ;  and  it  is  seen  that  what  St.  Paul  means  by  works  being  unable  to 
justify  is  not  that  they  cannot  do  so  in  themselves,  but  that  no  one  can  fulfil 
them  so  completely  as  to  be  '  just.'  We  may  notice  that  on  ii.  6  he  points 
out  that  the  words  can  be  taken  in  quite  a  natural  sense,  for  reward  does  not 
imply  merit,  and  on  ii.  13  that  he  applies  the  passage  to  Gentiles  not  in 
a  state  of  grace,  but  says  that  the  words  mean  that  although  Gentiles  had 
knowledge  and  opportunity  they  had  sinned,  and  therefore  would  be  neces- 
sarily condemned. 

The  Reformation  theology  made  St.  Paul's  point  of  view  comprehensible, 
but  introduced  errors  of  exegesis  of  its  own.  It  added  to  St.  Paul's  teaching 
of '  imputation '  a  theory  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  merits,  which  became 
the  basis  of  much  unreal  systematization,  and  was  an  incorrect  interpreta- 
tion of  St.  Paul's  meaning.  The  unreal  distinction  ol  fides  informis  and 
farmata,  added  to  Luther's  own  extravagant  language,  produced  a  strong 
antinomian  tendency.  *  Faith'  almost  comes  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  meritorious 
cause  of  justification  ;  an  unreal  faith  is  substituted  for  dead  works ;  and 
fiuth  becomes  identified  with  '  personal  assurance '  or '  self-assurance.'  More- 
over, for  the  ordinary  expression  of  St.  Paul,  'we  are  justified  by  faith,' 
was  substituted  'we  are  saved  by  faith,'  a  phrase  which,  although  once 
used  by  St.  Paul,  was  only  so  used  in  the  somewhat  vague  sense  of  adj^ur, 
that  at  one  time  applies  to  our  final  salvation,  at  another  to  our  present 
life  within  the  fold  of  the  Church;  and  the  whole  Christian  scheme  of 
sanctification,  rightly  separated  in  idea  from  justification,  became  divorced 
in  fact  from  the  Christian  life. 

The  Reformation  teaching  created  definitely  the  distinction  between  iustitia 
imputata  and  iustitia  infusa,  and  the  Council  of  Trent  defined  Justification 
thus :  iustificatio  non  est  sola  peccatorum  remissio,  sed  etiatn  tanctificatio 
tt  rtnovatio  interioris  hominis  p$r  voluntariam  susceptionem  graiiat  *t 
donorum  (Sess.  VI.  cap.  vii). 

A  typical  commentary  on  the  Romans  from  this  point  of  view  is  that  of 
Cornelius  a  Lapide.  On  L  17  he  makes  a  very  just  distinction  between  our 
justification  which  comes  by  faith  and  our  salvation  which  comes  through 
the  Gospel,  namely,  all  that  is  preached  in  the  Gospel,  the  death  and  merits 
of  Christ,  the  sacraments,  the  precepts,  the  promises.  He  argues  from  ii.  i| 
that  works  have  a  place  in  justification ;  and  that  our  justification  consists  in 
the  gift  to  us  of  the  Divine  justice,  that  is,  of  grace  and  charity  and  other 
▼irtnes. 

This  summary  has  been  made  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  bring  ont  the 
main  points  on  which  interpretation  has  varied.  It  is  clear  from  St.  Paul's 
language  that  he  makes  a  definite  distinction  in  thought  between  three 
several  stages  which  may  be  named  Justification,  Sanctification,  Salvation. 
Our  Christian  life  begins  with  the  act  of  faith  by  which  we  turn  to  Christ ; 
that  is  sealed  in  baptism  through  which  we  receive  remission  of  sins  and 
are  incorporated  into  the  Christian  community,  being  made  partakers  of 
all  the  spiritual  blessings  which  that  implies :  then  if  our  life  is  consistent 
with  these  conditions  we  may  hope  fur  life  eternal  not  for  our  own  merits 
I  but  for  Christ's  sake.  The  first  step,  that  of  Remission  of  sins,  is  Justi- 
'  fication :  the  life  that  follows  in  the  Christian  community  is  the  life  of 
Sanctification.  These  two  ideas  are  connected  in  time  in  so  far  as  the 
moment  in  which  our  sins  are  forgiven  begins  the  new  life ;  but  they  are 
separated  in  thought,  and  it  is  necessary  for  us  that  this  should  be  so,  io 
order  that  we  may  realize  that  unless  w«  come  to  Christ  in  the  salf-aoirendo 


VI.  1-14.]  UNION  WITH  CHRIST  I53 

of  faith  nothing  can  profit  ns.     There  is  a  close  connexion  again  between 

Justification  and  Salvation  ;  the  one  represents  the  beginning  of  the  proces* 
of  which  the  other  is  the  conclusion,  and  in  so  far  as  the  first  step  is  the 
essential  one  the  life  of  the  justified  on  earth  can  be  and  is  spoken  of  as 
the  life  of  the  saved ;  but  the  two  are  separated  both  in  thought  and  in 
time,  and  this  is  so  that  we  may  realize  that  our  life,  as  we  are  accepted  by 
faith,  endowed  with  the  gift  of  God's  Holy  Spirit,  and  incorporated  into  the 
Christian  community,  must  be  holy.  By  our  life  we  shall  be  judged  (see  the 
notes  on  ii.  6,  13) :  we  must  strive  to  make  our  character  such  as  befits  as 
for  the  life  in  which  we  hope  to  share :  but  we  are  saved  by  Christ's  death ; 
and  the  initial  act  of  faith  has  been  the  hmid  which  we  stretched  out  to 
receive  the  divine  mercy. 

Our  historical  review  has  largely  been  a  history  of  the  confusion  of  thes# 
three  separate  aspects  of  the  Gospel  scheme. 


THE  MYSTIOAI.  UNIOIT  OV  THB  CHBISTIAS 
WITH  CHHIST. 

VI.  1-14.  If  more  sin  only  means  more  grace,  shall  wt 
go  on  sinning  f  Impossible.  The  baptized  Christian  cannot 
sin.  Sin  is  a  direct  contradiction  of  the  state  of  things 
which  baptism,  assumes.  Baptism  has  a  double  function. 
{i)  It  brings  the  Christian  into  personal  contact  with  Christ, 
so  close  that  it  may  be  fitly  described  as  union  with  Him. 
(2)  //  expresses  symbolically  a  series  of  acts  corresponding  tfi 
the  redeeming  acts  of  Christ 

Immersion  as  Death. 

Submersion  =  Burial  [the  ratification  of  Death). 

Emergence  =  Resurrection 
All  these  the  Christian  has  to  undergo  in  a  moral  and 
spiritual  sense,  and  by  means  of  his  union  with  Christ.  As 
Christ  by  His  death  on  the  Cross  ceased  from  all  contact  with 
sin^  so  the  Christian,  united  with  Christ  in  his  baptism,  has 
done  once  for  all  with  sin,  and  lives  henceforth  a  reformed 
life  dedicated  to  God.  [  This  at  least  is  the  ideal:  whatever 
may  be  the  reality.']  (w.  i-ii.)  Act  then  as  men  who  have 
thrown  off  the  dominion  of  Sin.  Dedicate  all  your  powers 
to  God.  Be  not  afraid ;  LaWy  Sins  ally,  is  superseded  in 
its  hold  over  you  by  Grace  (w.  ia-14). 

*  Objector.  Is  not  this  dangerous  doctrine?  If  more  sis 
means  more  grace,  are  we  not  encouraged  to  go  on  sinning  ? 


154  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VI.  1-14. 

•St.  Paul.  A  horrible  thought !  When  we  took  the  decisive 
step  and  became  Christians  we  may  be  said  to  have  died  to  sin,  in 
such  a  way  as  would  make  it  flat  contradiction  to  live  any  longer 
in  it 

•Surely  yon  do  not  need  reminding  that  all  of  us  who  were 
immersed  or  baptized,  as  our  Christian  phrase  runs,  '  into  Christ,' 
i.  e.  into  the  closest  allegiance  and  adhesion  to  Him,  were  so 
immersed  or  baptized  into  a  special  relation  to  His  Death.  I  mean 
that  the  Christian,  at  his  baptism,  not  only  professes  obedience 
to  Christ  but  enters  into  a  relation  to  Him  so  intimate  that  it  may 
be  described  as  actual  union.  Now  this  union,  taken  in  connexion 
with  the  peculiar  symbolism  of  Baptism,  implies  a  great  deal  more. 
That  symbolism  recalls  to  us  with  great  vividness  the  redeeming 
acts  of  Christ — His  Death,  Burial,  and  Resurrection.  And  our 
union  with  Christ  involves  that  we  shall  repeat  those  acts,  in 
such  sense  as  we  may,  i.e.  in  a  moral  and  spiritual  sense,  in  our 
own  persons. 

•  When  we  descended  into  the  baptismal  water,  that  meant  that 
we  died  with  Christ — to  sin.  When  the  water  closed  over  our 
heads,  that  meant  that  we  lay  buried  with  Him,  in  proof  that  our 
death  to  sin,  hke  His  death,  was  real.  But  this  carries  with  it  the 
third  step  in  the  process.  As  Christ  was  raised  from  among  the 
dead  by  a  majestic  exercise  of  Divine  power,  so  we  also  must  from 
henceforth  conduct  ourselves  as  men  in  whom  has  been  implanted 
a  new  principle  of  life. 

"  For  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  we  can  join  with  Christ  in 
one  thing  and  not  join  with  Him  in  another.  If,  in  undergoing 
a  death  like  His,  we  are  become  one  with  Christ  as  the  graft 
becomes  one  with  the  tree  into  which  it  grows,  we  must  also  be 
one  with  Him  by  undergoing  a  resurrection  hke  His,  i.  e.  at  once 
a  moral,  spiritual,  and  physical  resunection.  •  For  it  is  matter  of 
experience  that  our  Old  Self — what  we  were  before  we  became 
Christians — was  nailed  to  the  Cross  with  Christ  in  our  baptism : 
it  was  killed  by  a  process  so  like  the  Death  of  Christ  and  so 
wrought  in  conjunction  with  Him  that  it  too  may  share  in  the 
name  and  associations  of  His  Crucifixion.  And  the  object  of 
this  crucifixion  of  our  Old  Self  was  that  the  bodily  sensual  part  of 
na,  prolific  home  and  haunt  of  sin,  might   be  so  paralyzed  and 


VI.  1-14.]  UNION  WITH  CHRIST  I55 

disabled  ae  henceforth  to  set  us  free  from  the  service  of  Sin.  'For 
just  as  no  legal  claim  can  be  made  upon  the  dead,  so  one  who  is 
(ethically)  dead  is  certified  *  Not  Guilty '  and  exempt  from  all  the 
claims  that  Sin  could  make  upon  him. 

'But  is  this  all?  Are  we  to  stop  at  the  death  to  sin?  No; 
there  is  another  side  to  the  process.  If,  when  we  became  Chris- 
tians, we  died  with  Christ  (morally  and  spiritually),  we  believe  that 
we  shall  also  live  with  Him  (physically,  as  well  as  ethically  and 
spiritually) :  '  because  we  know  for  a  fact  that  Christ  Himself,  now 
that  He  has  been  once  raised  from  the  dead,  will  not  have  the 
process  of  death  to  undergo  again.  Death  has  lost  its  hold  over 
Him  for  ever.  '°  For  He  has  done  with  Death,  now  that  He  has 
done  once  for  all  with  Sin,  by  bringing  to  an  end  that  earthly 
state  which  alone  brought  Him  in  contact  with  it.  Henceforth 
He  lives  in  uninterrupted  communion  with  God. 

"  In  like  manner  do  you  Christians  regard  yourselves  as  dead, 
inert  and  motionless  as  a  corpse,  in  all  that  relates  to  sin,  but 
instinct  with  life  and  responding  in  every  nerve  to  those  Divine 
claims  and  Divine  influences  under  which  you  have  been  brought 
by  your  union  with  Jesus  Messiah. 

"  I  exhort  you  therefore  not  to  let  Sin  exercise  its  tyranny  over 
this  frail  body  of  yours  by  giving  way  to  its  evil  passions.  "  Do 
not,  as  you  are  wont,  place  hand,  eye,  and  tongue,  as  weapons 
stained  with  unrighteousness,  at  the  service  of  Sin;  but  dedicate 
yovu-selves  once  for  all,  like  men  who  have  left  the  ranks  of  the 
dead  and  breathe  a  new  spiritual  life,  to  God ;  let  hand,  eye,  and 
tongue  be  weapons  of  righteous  temper  for  Him  to  wield.  '*You 
may  rest  assured  that  in  so  doing  Sin  will  have  no  claims  or 
power  over  you,  for  you  have  left  the  r/gime  of  Law  (which,  as  we 
shall  shortly  see,  is  a  stronghold  of  Sin)  for  that  of  Grace. 

L  The  fact  that  he  has  just  been  insisting  on  the  function  of  sin 
to  act  as  a  provocative  of  Divine  grace  recalls  to  the  mind  of  the 
Apostle  the  accusation  brought  against  himself  of  saying  '  Let  us 
do  evil,  that  good  may  come '  (iii.  8).  He  is  conscious  that  his 
own  teaching,  if  pressed  to  its  logical  conclusion,  i?  open  to  this 
charge ;  and  he  states  it  in  terms  which  are  not  exactly  those  which 
would  be  used  by  his  adversaries  but  such  as  might  seem  to 
express  the  one-sided  development  of  his  own  thought.  Of  course 
he  does  not  allow  the  consequence  for  a  moment ;  he  repudiates 


156  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VI.  1-a 

It  however  not  by  proving  a  non  tequitur,  but  by  showing  how  this 
train  of  thought  is  crossed  by  another,  even  more  fundamental. 
He  is  thus  led  to  bring  up  the  second  of  his  great  pivot-doctrines, 
the  Mystical  Union  of  the  Christian  with  Christ  dating  from  his 
Baptism.  Here  we  have  another  of  those  great  elemental  forces  in 
the  Christian  Life  which  effectually  prevents  any  antinomian  con- 
clusion such  as  might  seem  to  be  drawn  from  different  premises. 
St.  Paul  now  proceeds  to  explain  the  nature  of  this  force  and  the 
way  in  which  the  Christian  is  related  to  it 

The  various  readings  in  this  chapter  are  nnimportant.  There  can  b«  no 
question  that  we  should  read  iTttfxivoinfv  for  imixtvoviitv  in  ver.  i ;  (riaofttr 
and  not  (riawntr  in  ver.  3  ;  and  that  t^)  Kvpiq)  ^fxaiv  should  be  omitted  at  the 
end  of  ver.  11.  In  that  verse  the  true  position  of  thai  is  after  iavrovt 
(N*  B  C,  C)T.-Alex.  Jo.-Damasc.) :  some  inferior  authorities  place  it  after 
vfKpovs  (xiv  :  the  Western  text  (A  D  £  F  G,  Tert ;  d.  also  Fesh.  Boh.  Ann. 
Aeth.)  omits  it  altogether. 

2.  oiTii'es  direGai'Ofjici'.  Naturally  the  relative  of  quality :  '  we, 
being  what  we  are,  men  who  died  (in  our  baptism)  to  sin,'  Ac. 

3.  ^  dycoeiTe :  '  Can  you  deny  this,  or  is  it  possible  that  you  are 
not  aware  of  all  that  your  baptism  involves  ? '  St.  Paul  does  not 
like  to  assume  that  his  readers  are  ignorant  of  that  which  is  to  him 
so  fundamental.  The  deep  significance  of  Baptism  was  universally 
recognized  ;  though  it  is  hardly  likely  that  any  other  teacher  would 
have  expressed  that  significance  in  the  profound  and  original 
argument  which  follows. 

€Pa7rTia0T)|jiei'  €is  Xpiffxii'  *lijaooi» :  '  were  baptized  unto  anion 
with'  (not  merely  '  obedience  to')  'Christ'  The  act  of  baptism 
was  an  act  of  incorporation  into  Christ     Comp.  esp.  GaL  iii.  27 

wroi  yap  fls  XpKTTov  fl3aTrTia6>]Te,  Xpiarov  ivebvaairOe, 

This  conception  lies  at  the  root  of  the  whole  passage.  All  the 
consequences  which  St.  Paul  draws  follow  from  this  union,  incor- 
poration, identification  of  the  Christian  with  Christ  On  the  origin 
of  the  conception,  see  below. 

els  Toi'  0df  aroK  auroG  e^airriaOrjixer.  This  points  back  to  dntddvofttp 
above.  The  central  point  in  the  passage  is  deafh.  The  Christian 
dies  because  Christ  died,  and  he  is  enabled  to  realize  His  death 
thiough  his  union  with  Christ 

But  why  is  baptism  said  to  be  specially  '  into  Christ's  dea/h '  ? 
The  reason  is  because  it  is  owing  primarily  to  the  Death  of  Christ 
that  the  condition  into  which  the  Christian  enters  at  his  baptism 
is  such  a  changed  condition.  We  have  seen  that  St  Paul  does 
ascribe  to  that  Death  a  true  objective  efficacy  in  removing  the 
barrier  which  sin  has  placed  between  God  and  man.  Hence,  as 
it  is  Baptism  which  makes  a  man  a  Christian,  so  is  it  the  Death 
of  Christ  which  wins  for  the  Christian  his  special  immunities 
and  privileges.     The  sprinkling  of  the  Blood  <^  Christ  seals  that 


VL  8-6.]  UNION  WITH  CHRIST  l57 

covenant  with  His  People  to  which  Baptism  admits  them.  But  this 
is  cnly  the  first  step  :  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  show  how  the  Death 
of  Christ  has  a  subjective  as  well  as  an  objective  side  for  the 
believer. 

4.  aui'CT(i<t)T]fier  .  .  .  Qdvatop.  A  Strong  majority  of  the  best 
scholars  (Mey.-W.  Gif.  Lips.  Oltr.   Go.)   would  connect   tls  top 

ddvarov  with  dia  Toii  ^anriirnaTos  and  nOt  with  avvfTd(f)r]fifv,  becaUSe  of 

(i)  t/SoTTT.  *tt  T.  6av.  avT.  just  before;  (ii)  a  certain  incongruity  in 
the  connexion  of  (rwrrdcf).  with  ttt  t6v  Bdvarov  :  death  precedes  burial 
and  is  not  a  result  or  object  of  it  We  are  not  sure  that  this 
reasoning  is  decisive,  (i)  St.  Paul  does  not  avoid  these  ambiguous 
constructions,  as  may  be  seen  by  iii.  25  tv  ttpoiOfro  . .  .  8ia  rrjs  iriarecos 
iv  Tp  avTov  aiftaTt,  where  eV  tw  airov  a'ftari  goes  with  npotdtTo  and 
not  with  iia  rrjs  niarfcts.  (ii)  The  ideas  of  '  burial '  and  '  death '  are 
so  closely  associated  that  they  may  be  treated  as  correlative  to  each 
other — burial  is  only  death  sealed  and  made  certain,  '  Our  baptism 
was  a  sort  of  funeral ;  a  solemn  act  of  consigning  us  to  that  death 
of  Christ  in  which  we  are  made  one  with  Him,'  Va.  (iii)  There  is 
a  special  reason  for  saying  here  not  '  we  were  buried  into  burial,' 
but  '  we  were  buried  into  death,'  because  '  death '  is  the  keynote  of 
the  whole  passage,  and  the  word  would  come  in  appropriately  to 
mark  the  transition  from  Christ  to  the  Christian.  Still  these  argu- 
ments do  not  amount  to  proof  that  the  second  connexion  is  right, 
and  it  is  perhaps  best  to  yield  to  the  weight  of  authority.    For  the 

idea  compare  esp.  Col.  iL  is  avvra^ivrts  air^  cV  r»  ^anrlafiari  iv  ^ 
Kai  <rvvT)y€p6T]Tt, 

CIS  Toi'  Qdvarov  is  best  taken  as  =  '  into  that  death  (of  His),'  the 
death  just  mentioned :  so  Oltr.  Gif.  Va.  Mou.,  but  not  Mey.-W. 
Go.,  who  prefer  the  sense  *  into  death  '  (in  the  abstract).  In  any 
case  there  is  a  stress  on  the  idea  of  death  ;  but  the  clause  and  the 
verse  which  follow  will  show  that  St.  Paul  does  not  yet  detach  the 
death  of  the  Christian  from  the  death  of  Christ 

8id  TTis  Sdltjs  TOO  rroTpcJs :  d6$ijs  here  practically  =  *  power ' ;  but 
it  is  power  viewed  externally  rather  than  internally ;  the  stress  is 
laid  not  so  much  on  the  inward  energy  as  on  the  signal  and 
glorious  manifestation.  Va.  compares  Jo.  xi.  40,  23,  where  '  thou 
shalt  see  the  glory  of  God '  =  '  thy  brother  shall  rise  again.'  See 
note  on  iii.  23. 

6.  (ri;ft()>uToi :  '  united  by  growth ' ;  the  word  exactly  expresses 
the  process  by  which  a  graft  becomes  united  with  the  life  of  a  tree. 
So  the  Christian  becomes  '  grifted  into '  Christ.     For  the  metaphor 

we  may  compare  xi.  17  o-w  d«  dypUXaios  £>v  fvtKfvrpiaSrjs  (v  avrois,  KBu 
(TvyKoivavhi  r^f  p«'C'/f  *"•  ^'  TrtdnjTos  Tijr  ikaias  tyii/ov,  and  TennySOn's 
'grow  incorporate  into  thee.' 

It  is  a  question  whether  we  are  to  take  (Tvy,<\>.  ytyiv.  directly  with 
ry  iiumiti^  cr.X.  or  whether  we  are  to  supply  r^  Xpurr^  and  make 


15*  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VI.  6,  d 

r^  6fwia)fi,  dat.  of  respect.  Probably  the  former,  as  being  simple! 
and  more  natural,  so  far  at  least  as  construction  is  concerned, 
though  no  doubt  there  is  an  ellipse  in  meaning  which  would  be 
more  exactly  represented  by  the  fuller  phrase.  Such  condensed 
and  strictly  speaking  inaccurate  expressions  are  common  in 
language  of  a  quasi-colloquial  kind.  St.  Paul  uses  these  freer 
modes  of  speech  and  is  not  tied  down  by  the  rules  of  formal 
literary  composition. 

6.  Yi»'«^<^'«o»^«s  •  see  Sp.  Comm.  on  i  Cor.  viii.  i  (p.  299),  where 
yti/owTKO)  as  contrasted  with  olda  is  explained  as  signifying  '  apprecia- 
tive or  experimental  acquaintance.'  A  slightly  different  explanation 
is  given  by  Gif.  ad  be,  '  noting  this,'  as  of  the  idea  involved  in  the 
fact,  a  knowledge  which  results  from  the  exercise  of  understanding 
{vols). 

i  iraXaids  ilJjiciK  ai^pwvo« :  'our  old  self';  cp.  esp.  Suicer,  Tlut. 
i.  352,  where  the  patristic  interpretations  are  collected  {ji  wponpa 
KciXiTfla  Theodrt. ;  6  Karfyvwafiivos  /9ior  Euthym.-Zig.,  &c.). 

This  phrase,  with  its  correlative  i  icaivdt  HvOpofwos,  is  a  marked  link  of 
eonnexion  between  the  acknowledged  and  dispnted  Epp.  (cf.  Eph.  iL  15; 
iv.  33,  34;  Col.  iii.  9).  The  coincidence  is  the  more  remarkable  as  the 
phrase  would  hardly  come  into  use  until  great  stress  began  to  be  laid  upon 
the  necessity  for  a  change  of  life,  and  may  be  a  coinage  of  St  Paul's.  It 
should  be  noted  however  that  6  iyrit  ivOpuwos  goes  back  to  Plato  (Gnn. 
Thay.  s.  v.  dyOfxuwos,  i.e.). 

«ruv€OTavpioOt) :  cf.  Gal.  iL  30  X/xar^  erwtaraipwfuu.  There  is  a  differ- 
ence between  the  thought  here  and  in  /mit.  XH.  II.  xii.  3  '  Behold  I  in  the 
cross  all  doth  consist,  and  all  lieth  in  our  dying  thereon ;  for  there  is  no 
other  way  unto  life,  and  unto  true  inward  peace,  but  the  way  of  the  holy 
cross,  and  of  daily  mortification.'  This  is  rather  the  'taking  up  the  cross' 
of  the  Gospels,  which  is  a  daily  process.  St.  Paul  no  doubt  leaves  room  for 
such  a  process  (Col.  iii.  5,  &c.)  ;  but  here  he  is  going  back  to  that  which  is 
its  root,  the  one  decisive  ideal  act  which  he  regards  as  taking  place  in 
baptism  :  in  this  the  more  gradual  lifelong  process  is  anticipated. 

KOTapYTjOf.  For  Korapytiv  see  on  iii.  3.  The  word  is  appro- 
priately used  in  this  connexion :  '  that  tfie  body  of  sin  may  be 
paralyzed,'  reduced  to  a  condition  of  absolute  impotence  and 
inaction,  as  if  it  were  dead. 

ri  ffwfxa  ttis  dfiaprios :  the  body  of  which  sin  has  taken  posses- 
sion. Parallel  phrases  are  vii.  24  roC  aifiaros  rov  dapdrov  rovrov : 
Phil.  iii.  2 1  TO  a&fta  t^j  ranuvaxTtas  fifiStu  :  Col.  ii.  1 1  [*V  t§  areic- 
Svcret]  Tou  (TUfiuTos  r^t  aapK6s.  The  gen.  has  the  general  sense  of 
'  belonging  to,'  but  acquires  a  special  shade  of  meaning  in  each 
case  from  the  context ;  '  the  body  which  is  given  over  to  death/ 
'  the  body  in  its  present  state  of  degradation,'  '  the  body  which  ia 
so  apt  to  be  the  instrument  of  its  own  carnal  impulses.' 

Here  t6  crci>fia  r^r  dftaprla^  must  be  taken  closely  together,  because 
it  is  not  the  body,  hmplj>  ox  tuch,  which  is  to  be  killed,  but  th« 


VI.  6-10.]  ONION  WITH  CHRIST  159 

body  as  the  seat  of  sin.    This  is  to  be  killed,  80  that  Sin  may  lose 

its  slave. 

Tou  fATiK^Ti  SooXciJen'.  On  Tov  with  inf.  as  expressing  purpose  see 
esp.  Westcott,  Hebrews,  p.  342. 

TTJ  d|jiapTia :  ofiapria,  as  throughout  this  passage,  is  personified  as 
a  hard  taskmaster:  see  the  longer  note  at  the  end  of  the  last  chapter. 

7.  A  ydp  d'iro0ai'J»K  .  .  .  d|iapTias.  The  argument  is  thrown  into 
the  form  of  a  general  proposition,  so  that  6  dnoOavav  must  be  taken 
in  the  widest  sense,  '  he  who  has  undergone  death  in  any  sense  of 
the  term' — physical  or  ethical.  The  primary  sense  is  however 
clearly  physical:  'a  dead  man  has  his  quittance  from  any  claim 
that  Sin  can  make  against  him ' :  what  is  obviously  true  of  the 
physically  dead  is  inferentially  true  of  the  ethically  dead.  Comp. 
I  Pet.  iv.  I  ort  6  7Ta6d)v  aapKi  neiravrai  Afiaprtas :  also  the  Rabbinical 
parallel  quoted  by  Delitzsch  ad  loc.  '  when  a  man  is  dead  he  is  free 
from  the  law  and  the  commandments.' 

Delitzsch  goes  so  far  as  to  describe  the  idea  as  an  *  acknowledged  Ipou 
communis,''  which  would  considerably  weaken  the  force  of  the  literuy 
coincidence  between  the  two  Apostles. 

ScSiKOiUTai  Airi  ttjs  djiapTios.  The  sense  of  idtKalarcu  is  Still 
forensic  :  '  is  declared  righteous,  acquitted  from  guilt.'  The  idea  is 
that  of  a  master  claiming  legal  possession  of  a  slave  :  proof  being 
put  in  that  the  slave  is  dead,  the  verdict  must  needs  be  that  the 
claims  of  law  are  satisfied  and  that  he  is  no  longer  answerable ; 
Sin  loses  its  suit. 

8.  <Tut,r\aofiw.  The  different  senses  of '  life  '  and  '  death '  always 
lie  near  together  with  St.  Paul,  and  his  thought  glides  backwards 
and  forwards  from  one  to  another  almost  imperceptibly ;  now  he 
lays  a  little  more  stress  on  the  physical  sense,  now  on  the  ethical ; 
at  one  moment  on  the  present  state  and  at  another  on  the  future. 
Here  and  in  ver.  9  the  future  eternal  life  is  most  prominent ;  but 
ver.  10  is  transitional,  and  in  ver.  11  we  are  back  again  at  the 
stand-point  of  the  present. 

9.  If  the  Resurrection  opened  up  eternity  to  Christ  it  will  do 
so  also  to  the  Christian. 

Kupi€u6i.  Still  the  idea  of  master  and  slave  or  vassal.  Death 
loses  its  dominium  over  Christ  altogether.  That  which  gave  Death 
its  hold  upon  Him  was  sin,  the  human  sin  with  which  He  was 
brought  in  contact  by  His  Incarnation.  The  connexion  was 
severed  once  for  all  by  Death,  which  set  Him  free  for  ever. 

10.  o  Y^p  dir^daKc.  The  whole  clause  forms  a  kind  of  cognate 
accus.  after  the  second  unidavtv  (Win.  §  xxiv.  4,  p.  209  E.  T.); 
£uthym.-Zig.    paraphrases    tov   Bdvarov    ov  mrfSavf    hia  rfjp   ayiapr'uv 

iniBavt  rrjv  rjfimpcw,  where  however  T§  ofjMfyrif  is  not  rightly  repre- 
sented by  But  T^v  dfuipruMtf, 


l6o  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VL  10,  11 

Tj)  AfiapTia  iLiri9av€9.  In  what  sense  did  Christ  die  to  sin } 
The  phrase  seems  to  point  back  to  ver.  7  above :  Sin  ceased  to 
have  any  claim  upon  Him.  But  how  could  Sin  have  a  claim  upon 
Him  'who  had  no  acquaintance  with  sin'  (a  Cor.  v.  21)?  The 
same  verse  which  tells  us  this  supplies  the  answer :  tw  ftf)  yv6in-a 
iftapriav  xmtp  fjfioiv  iftaprlav  tnoiija-fv,  '  the  Sinless  One  for  our  sake 
was  treated  as  if  He  were  sinful,'  The  sin  which  hung  about  Him 
and  wreaked  its  effects  upon  Him  was  not  His  but  ours  (cp.  i  Pet. 
ii.  22,  24).  It  was  in  His  Death  that  this  pressure  of  human  sin 
culminated ;  but  it  was  also  in  His  Death  that  it  rame  to  an  end, 
decisively  and  for  ever. 

e<|>(£Tra|.  The  decisiveness  of  the  Death  of  Christ  is  specially 
insisted  upon  in  Ep.  to  Hebrews.  This  is  the  great  point  of  con- 
trast with  the  Levitical  sacrifices :  they  did  and  it  did  not  need  to 
be  repeated  (of.  Heb.  vii.  27;  ix.  is,  26,  28;  x.  10;  also  i  Pet 
iii.  18). 

JfJ  Tw  ©eu.  Christ  died  for  (in  relation  to)  Sin,  and  lives  hence- 
forth for  God.  The  old  chain  which  by  binding  Him  to  sin  made 
Him  also  liable  to  death,  is  broken.  No  other  power  Kvpuiti  avrov 
but  God. 

This  phrase  ^  ry  Sea  naturally  suggests  '  the  moral '  application 
to  the  believer. 

IL  \oYiteCT0e  iaoToos.  The  man  and  his  '  self '  are  distinguished. 
The  'sejjf'  is  not  the  'whole  self,'  but  only  that  part  of  the  man 
which  lay  under  the  dominion  of  sin.  [It  will  help  us  to  bear  this 
in  mind  in  the  interpretation  of  the  next  chapter.]  This  part  of 
the  man  is  dead,  so  that  sin  has  lost  its  slave  and  is  balked  of  its 
prey;  but  his  true  self  is  alive,  and  alive /or  God,  through  its 
union  with  the  risen  Christ,  who  also  lives  only  for  God 

XoYiS«<r9e :  not  indie,  (as  Beng.  Lips.)  but  imper.,  preparing  the 
way,  after  St.  Paul's  manner,  for  the  direct  exhortation  of  the  next 
paragraph. 

cr  XptoTw  *It|o-o5.  This  phrase  is  the  summary  expression  of 
the  doctrine  which  underlies  the  whole  of  this  section  and  forms,  as 
we  have  seen,  one  of  the  main  pillars  of  St.  Paul's  theology.  The 
chief  points  seem  to  be  these,  (i)  The  relation  is  conceived  as 
a  local  relation.  The  Christian  has  his  being  '  in '  Christ,  as 
living  creatures  '  in '  the  air,  as  fish  '  in '  the  water,  as  plants  'in* 
the  earth  (Deissmann,  p.  84  ;  see  below).  (2)  The  order  of  the 
words  is  invariably  fV  Xpwrrw  'l»j<rov,  not  cV  Irjcrov  Xpiar^  (Deissmann, 
p.  88  ;  cp.  also  Haussleiter,  as  referred  to  on  p.  86  sup.).  We  find 
however  «V  tw  'li^oroO  in  Eph.  iv.  21,  but  not  in  the  same  strict 
application.  (3)  In  agreement  with  the  regular  usage  of  the  wor'ds 
in  this  order  «V  Xp.  *I.  always  relates  to  the  glorified  Christ  regarded 
as  wtvfxa,  not  to  the  historical  Christ.  (4)  The  corresponding 
expression  Xomti^  iw  nw  is  best  explained  by  the  same  analogy  of 


VI.  11-14.]  UNION  WITH  CHRIST  l6l 

'the  air.'    Man  lives  and  breathes  '  in  th«  air/  and  the  air  is  also 
'in  the  man '  (Deissmann,  p.  92). 

Deissmann's  monograph  it  entitled  DU  meuttttamtntlith*  Forme!  in 
Ckristojtsu,  Marburg,  1892.  It  is  a  carefnl  and  methodical  investigation  of 
the  subject,  somewhat  too  rigorons  in  pressing  all  examples  of  the  use  into 
the  same  mould,  and  rather  inclined  to  realistic  modes  of  conception.  A  very 
interesting  question  arises  as  to  the  origin  of  the  phrase.  Herr  Deissmann 
regards  it  as  a  creation— and  naturally  as  one  of  the  most  original  creations — 
of  St  Paul.  And  it  is  true  that  it  is  not  found  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
Approximation!  however  are  found  more  or  less  sporadically,  in  i  St.  Petei 
(iii.  16;  v.  10,  14;  always  in  the  correct  text  iw  Xpiar^),  in  the  Acts  (iv.  a 
ip  T^  'Irjffov:  9,  10  ev  T^  ivofiari  'Irjaov  XpiffTov:  13  ;  xiii.  39  iv  rovrqi  was 
i  wiardaiv  SiKaiovTCu),  and  ia  iiill  volume  in  tke  Fourth  Gospel  (iv  ffiot, 
ixsvtiv  Iv  iixoi  Jo.  vi.  56;  liv.  ao,  30;  xv.  3-7;  xvi.  33;  xvii.  31),  in  the 
First  Epistle  of  St  John  {iv  avrw,  iv  ry  vl^  tlvau,  nivuv  ii.  5,  6,  8,  24,  27, 
a8;  iii.  6,  24;  T.  II,  30;  Ix*"'  »'"•'  "'({v  r.  13),  and  also  in  the  Apocalypse 
{iv  'Irjaov  i.g;iv  Kiz/x'y  xiv.  13).  Besides  tha  N.  T.  there  are  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  whose  usage  should  be  investigated  with  reference  to  the  extent  to 
which  it  i  directly  traceable  to  St  Paul*.  The  phrase  iv  Xpiar^  'Itjoov 
occurs  in  1  Clem,  xxxii.  4 ;  zxxviii.  i  ;  Ign.  £ph.  i.  1 ;  Trail,  ix.  3  ;  Kom. 
Li;  ii.  3.  The  commoner  phrases  are  iv  XpiarS)  in  Clem.  Rom.  and  iv 
^Irjaov  1.piar^  which  is  frequent  in  Ignat  The  distinction  between  iv  'I»;aoC 
XpiffT^  and  iv  Xptar^  'Irjaov  is  by  this  time  obliterated.  In  view  of  these 
phenomena  and  the  usage  of  N.  T.  it  is  natural  to  ask  whether  all  can  be 
accounted  for  on  the  assumption  that  the  phrase  originates  entirely  with 
St.  Paul.  In  spite  of  the  silence  of  Evv.  Synopt  it  seems  more  probable 
that  the  suggestion  came  in  some  way  ultimately  from  our  Lord  Himself. 
This  would  not  be  the  only  instance  of  an  idea  which  caught  the  attention  of 
but  few  of  the  first  disciples  bat  was  destined  afterwards  to  wider  acceptance 
and  expansion. 

12.  fiaaiXtuirm:  cf.  ▼.  ai  of  Sin;  ▼.  14,  17  of  Death. 

With  this  Terse  comp.  Philo,  Dt  Gigant.  7  (Mang.  i.  366)  Afrtor  U  r^i 
iytwiartjfxoavvtjs  ftiyiarov  ^  ffdpi  Mat  1)  wp6s  aipua  oUtiuau. 

18.  Observe  the  change  of  tense :  irapi<rr(£K«T€, '  go  on  yielding/ 
by  the  weakness  which  succumbs  to  temptation  whenever  it  presses ; 
vapaon^aaTC,  '  dedicate  by  one  decisive  act,  one  resolute  effort.' 

SirXo :  '  weapons '  (cf.  esp.  Rom.  xiii.  13;  a  Cor.  vL  7 ;  x.  4). 
adiKMu  and  diKaioavvjjs  are  gen.  qualitatis.  For  a  like  military 
metaphor  more  fully  worked  out  comp.  Eph.  vi.  i  i-i  7. 

14.  dftapTia  Y<ip.  You  are  not,  as  you  used  to  be,  constantlj 
harassed  by  the  assaults  of  sin,  aggravated  to  your  consciences  by 
the  prohibitions  of  Law.  The  fuller  explanation  of  this  aggravating 
effect  of  Law  is  coming  in  what  follows,  esp.  in  ch.  vii ;  and  it  is 
just  like  St.  Paul  to  '  set  up  a  finger-post,'  pointing  to  the  course  his 
argument  is  to  take,  in  the  last  clause  of  a  paragraph.     It  is  like 

*  It  is  rather  strange  that  this  question  does  not  appear  to  be  touched  eithei 
by  Bp.  Lightfoot  or  by  Gebhardt  and  Hamack,  There  is  more  to  the  point  in 
the  excellent  monograph  on  Ignatius  by  Von  der  Goltz  in  Ttxtt  m  UnUn, 
siL  3,  but  the  paiticalar  group  of  phrases  it  not  directly  treated. 


I63  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VI.  l-14i 

him  too  to  go  off  at  the  word  v6fiop  into  a  digression,  returning  te 
the  subject  with  which  the  chapter  opened,  and  looking  at  it  from 
another  side. 

Tk^  DoctrifU  of  Mystical  Union  vfith  Chriif. 

How  did  St.  Paul  arrive  at  this  doctrine  of  the  Mystical  Union  i 
Doubtless  by  the  guiding  of  the  Holy  Spirit  But  that  guiding,  a» 
it  usually  does,  operated  through  natural  and  human  channels. 
The  channel  in  this  instance  would  seem  to  be  psychological.  The 
basis  of  the  doctrine  is  the  Apostle's  own  experience.  His  conver- 
sion was  an  intellectual  change,  but  it  was  also  something  much 
more.  It  was  an  intense  personal  apprehension  of  Christ,  as 
Master,  Redeemer  and  Lord.  But  that  apprehension  was  so 
persistent  and  so  absorbing;  it  was  such  a  dominant  element  in 
the  life  of  the  Apostle  that  by  degrees  it  came  to  mean  little  less 
than  an  actual  identification  of  will.  In  the  case  of  ordinary  friend- 
ship and  affection  it  is  no  very  exceptional  thing  for  unity  of  purpose 
and  aim  so  to  spread  itself  over  the  character,  and  so  to  permeate 
thought  and  feeling,  that  those  who  are  joined  together  by  thi« 
invisible  and  spiritual  bond  seem  to  act  and  think  almost  as  if  they 
were  a  single  person  and  not  two.  But  we  can  understand  that  in 
St.  Paul's  case  with  an  object  for  his  affections  so  exalted  as  Christ, 
and  with  influences  from  above  meeting  so  powerfully  the  upward 
motions  of  his  own  spirit,  the  process  of  identification  had  a  more 
than  common  strength  and  completeness.  It  was  accomplished  in 
that  sphere  of  spiritual  emotion  for  which  the  Apostle  possessed 
such  remarkable  gifts — gifts  which  caused  him  to  be  singled  out  as 
the  recipient  of  special  Divine  communications.  Hence  it  was  that 
there  grew  up  within  him  a  state  of  feeling  which  he  struggles  to 
express  and  succeeds  in  expressing  through  language  which  is 
practically  the  language  of  union.  Nothing  short  of  this  seemed  to 
do  justice  to  the  degree  of  that  identification  of  will  which  the 
Apostle  attained  to.  He  spoke  of  himself  as  one  with  Christ.  And 
then  his  thoughts  were  so  concentrated  upon  the  culminating  acts 
in  the  Life  of  Christ — the  acts  which  were  in  a  special  sense  asso- 
ciated with  man's  redemption — His  Death,  Burial  and  Resurrection 
-that  when  he  came  to  analyze  his  own  feelings,  and  to  dissect 
this  idea  of  oneness,  it  was  natural  to  him  to  see  in  it  certain  stages, 
corresponding  to  those  great  acts  of  Christ,  to  see  in  it  something 
corresponding  to  death,  something  corresponding  to  burial  (which 
was  only  the  emphasizing  of  death),  and  something  corresponding 
to  resurrection. 

Here  there  came  in  to  help  the  peculiar  symbolism  of  Baptism.  An 
imagination  as  lively  as  St.  Paul's  soon  found  in  it  analogies  to  the 
same  process.     That  plunge  beneath  the  running  waters  was  like 


VI.  1-14.]  ONION  WITH  CHRIST  163 

ft  death ;  the  moment's  pause  while  they  swept  on  overhead  was 
like  a  burial ;  the  standing  erect  once  more  in  air  and  sunlight 
was  a  species  of  resunection.  Nor  did  the  likeness  reside  only  in 
the  outward  rite,  it  extended  to  its  inner  significance.  To  what  was 
it  that  the  Christian  died  ?  He  died  to  his  9ld  self,  to  all  that  he 
had  been,  whether  as  Jew  or  Gentile,  before  he  became  a  Christian. 
To  what  did  he  rise  again  ?  Clearly  to  that  ntw  life  to  which  the 
Christian  was  bound  over.  And  in  this  spiritual  death  and  resurrec- 
tion the  great  moving  factor  was  that  one  fundamental  principle  of 
union  with  Christ,  identification  of  will  with  His.  It  wag  this  which 
enabled  the  Christian  to  make  his  parting  with  the  past  and  embracing 
of  new  obligations  real. 

There  is  then,  it  will  be  seen,  a  meeting  and  coalescence  of 
a  number  of  diverse  trains  of  thought  in  this  most  pregnant 
doctrine.  On  the  side  of  Christ  there  is  first  the  loyal  acceptance 
of  Him  as  Messiah  and  Lord,  that  acceptance  giving  rise  to  an 
impulse  of  strong  adhesion,  and  the  adhesion  growing  into  an 
identification  of  will  and  purpose  which  is  not  wrongly  described 
as  union.  Further,  there  is  the  distributing  of  this  sense  of  union 
over  the  cardinal  acts  of  Christ's  Death,  Burial  and  Resurrection. 
Then  on  the  side  of  the  man  there  is  his  formal  ratification  of  the 
process  by  the  undergoing  of  Baptism,  the  symbolism  of  which  all 
converges  to  the  same  end ;  and  there  is  his  practical  assumption 
of  the  duties  and  obligations  to  which  baptism  and  the  embracing 
of  Christianity  commit  him — the  breaking  with  his  tainted  past,  the 
entering  upon  a  new  and  regenerate  career  for  the  future. 

The  vocabulary  and  working  out  of  the  thought  in  St.  Paul  are 
his  own,  but  the  fundamental  conception  has  close  parallels  in  the 
writings  of  St.  John  and  St.  Peter,  the  New  Birth  through  water 
and  Spirit  (John  iii.  5),  the  being  begotten  again  of  incorruptible 
seed  (i  Pet.  i.  23),  the  comparison  of  baptism  to  the  ark  of  Noah 
(i  Pet.  iii.  30,  21)  in  St.  Peter;  and  there  is  a  certain  partial 
coincidence  even  in  the  imiKir\a(v  of  St.  James  (Jaa.  i.  18). 

It  ia  the  great  merit  of  Matthew  Arnold's  St.  Paul  mnd  ProUstemtiim, 

whatever  its  defects  and  whatever  its  one-sidedness,  that  it  did  seize  with 
remarkable  force  and  freshness  on  this  part  of  St.  Paul's  teaching.  And  the 
merit  is  all  the  greater  when  we  consider  how  really  high  and  difficult  that 
teaching  is,  and  how  apt  it  is  to  shoot  over  the  head  of  reader  or  hearer. 
Matthew  Arnold  saw,  and  expressed  with  all  his  own  luciriity,  the  foundation 
of  simple  psychological  fact  on  which  the  Apostle's  mystical  language  ia 
based.  He  gives  to  it  the  name  of '  faith,'  and  it  is  indeed  the  only  kind  of 
Ikith  which  he  recognizes.  Nor  is  he  wrong  in  giving  the  process  this  name, 
though,  as  it  happens,  St.  Paul  has  not  as  yet  spoken  of  '  faith '  in  this  con- 
nexion, and  does  not  so  speak  of  it  until  he  comes  to  Eph.  iii.  1 7.  It  waa 
really  faith,  the  living  apprehension  of  Christ,  which  lie*  at  the  bottom  of  all 
the  language  of  identification  and  union. 

*  If  ever  there  was  a  case  in  which  the  wonder-working  power  of  attach- 
Kent,  in  a  man  for  whom  th#  moral  sympathies  and  the  desire  for  righteoa» 

M  • 


l64  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  ["VI.  l-14k 

ness  WCTC  all-powerful,  might  employ  Itself  and  work  its  wonders,  it  wai 
here  Paul  felt  this  power  penetrate  him ;  and  he  felt,  also,  how  by 
perfectly  identifying  himself  through  it  with  Christ,  and  in  no  other  way, 
could  he  ever  get  «he  confidence  and  force  to  do  as  Christ  did.  H«  thus 
found  a  point  in  which  the  mighty  world  outside  man,  and  the  weak  world 
inside  him,  seemed  to  combine  for  his  salvation.  The  struggling  stream  of 
duty,  which  had  not  volume  enough  to  bear  him  to  his  goal,  was  suddenly 
reinforced  by  the  immense  tidal  wave  of  sympathy  and  emotion.  To  this 
new  and  potent  influence  Paul  gave  the  name  of  faith '  {St.  Paul  an4 
Protestantism,  p.  69  f.). 

*  It  is  impossible  to  be  in  presence  of  this  Pauline  conception  of  faith 
without  remarking  on  the  incomparable  power  of  edification  which  it  con- 
tains. It  is  indeed"  a  c^o^vni^g  evidence  of  that  piercing  practical  religious 
sense  which  we  have  attributed  to  Paul.  .  .  .  The  elemental  power  of  sym» 
pathy  and  emotion  in  us,  a  power  which  extends  beyond  the  limits  of  our 
own  will  and  con'^cious  activity,  which  we  cannot  measure  and  control,  and 
which  in  each  of  us  differs  immensely  in  force,  volume,  and  mode  of  mani- 
festation, he  calls  into  full  play,  and  sets  it  to  work  with  all  its  strength  and 
in  all  its  variety.  But  one  unalterable  object  is  assigned  by  him  to  this 
power:  to  die  with  Christ  to  the  law  of  the  flesh,  to  live  with  Christ  to  tki 
law  of  the  mind.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  necrosis  (2  Cor.  iv.  10),  Paul's 
central  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  which  makes  his  profoundness  and  origin- 
ality. .  .  ,  Those  multitudinous  motions  of  appetite  and  self-will  which 
reason  and  conscience  dis^ipproved,  reason  and  conscience  could  yet  not 
govern,  and  had  to  yield  to  them.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  what  drove 
Paul  almost  to  despair,  ^^'ell,  then,  how  did  Paul's  faith,  working  through 
love,  help  him  here  ?  It  enabled  him  to  reinforce  duty  by  affection.  In  the 
central  need  of  his  nature,  the  desire  to  govern  these  motions  of  unrighteous- 
ness, it  enabled  him  to  say :  Die  to  them  I  Christ  did.  If  any  man  be  in 
Christ,  said  Paul, — that  is,  if  any  man  identifies  himself  with  Christ  by 
attachment  so  that  he  enters  into  his  feelings  and  lives  with  his  life,— he  is 
a  new  creature ;  he  can  do,  and  does,  what  Christ  did.  First,  he  suffers 
with  him.  Christ,  throughout  His  life  and  in  His  death,  presented  His  body 
a  living  sacrifice  to  God ;  every  self-willed  impulse,  blindly  trying  to  assert 
itself  without  respect  of  the  universal  order,  he  died  to.  You,  says  Paul  to 
his  disciple,  are  to  do  the  same.  ...  If  you  cannot,  your  attachment,  your 
faith,  must  be  one  that  goes  but  a  very  little  way.  In  an  ordinary  human 
attachment,  out  of  love  to  a  woman,  out  of  love  to  a  friend,  out  of  love  to 
a  child,  you  can  suppress  qnite  easily,  because  by  sympathy  yon  become  one 
with  them  and  their  feelings,  this  or  that  impulse  of  selfishness  which 
happens  to  conflict  with  them,  and  which  hitherto  you  have  obeyed.  AU 
impulses  of  selfishness  conflict  with  Christ's  feelings.  He  showed  it  by  dying 
to  them  all ;  if  you  are  one  with  Him  by  faith  and  sympathy,  you  can  die  to 
them  also.  Then,  secondly,  if  you  thus  die  with  Him,  you  become  trans- 
formed by  the  renewing  of  your  mind,  and  rise  with  Him.  .  .  .  You  rise  with 
Him  to  that  harmonious  conformity  with  the  real  and  eternal  order,  that 
tense  of  pleasing  God  who  trieth  the  hearts,  which  is  life  and  peace,  and 
which  grows  more  and  more  till  it  becomes  glory '  (ibid.  pp.  75-78). 

Another  striking  presentation  of  the  thought  of  this  passage  will  be  found 
in  a  lay  sermon.  The  Witttess  of  Goa,  by  the  philosopher,  T.  H.  Green 
(London,  1883;  also  in  IVo/hs).  Mr.  Green  was  as  far  removed  as  Matthew 
Arnold  from  conventional  theology,  and  there  are  traces  of  Hegelianism  in 
what  follows  for  which  allowance  should  be  made,  but  his  mind  had  a  natural 
affinity  for  this  side  of  St  Paul's  teaching,  and  he  has  expressed  it  with  great 
force  and  moral  intensity.  To  this  the  brief  extracts  given  will  do  bat 
imperfect  justice,  and  the  sermon  is  well  worth  reading  in  its  entirety. 

'  Tlie  death  and  rising  again  of  the  Christ,  M  [St  Faal]  conceived  theak. 


VI.  1-14.]  UNION  WITH  CHRIST  1 65 

were  not  separate  and  independent  events.  They  were  two  sides  of  the  same 
act — an  act  which  relatively  to  sin,  to  the  flesh,  to  the  old  man,  to  all  which 
separates  from  God,  is  death ;  but  which,  just  for  that  reason,  is  the  birth  of 
a  new  life  relatively  to  God, .  .  .  God  was  in  [Christ],  so  that  what  He  did, 
God  did.  A  death  unto  life,  a  life  out  of  death,  must  then  be  in  some  way 
the  essenct'  of  the  divine  nature — must  be  an  act  which,  though  exhibited 
once  for  all  in  the  crucifixion  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  was  yet  eternal — 
the  act  of  God  Himself.  For  that  very  reason,  however,  it  was  one  perpetu- 
ally re-enacted,  and  to  be  re-enacted,  by  man.  If  Christ  died  for  all,  all  died 
in  Him :  all  were  boned  in  His  grave  to  be  all  made  alive  in  His  resur- 
lection  ...  In  other  words,  He  constitutes  in  us  a  new  intellectual  conscious- 
ness, which  transforms  the  will  and  is  the  source  of  a  new  moral  life.' 
There  is  special  value  in  the  way  in  which  the  difference  is  brought  out 
between  the  state  of  things  to  which  the  individual  can  attain  by  his  owh 
effort  and  one  in  which  the  change  is  wrou<^ht  from  without.  The  first 
'would  be  a  self-renunciation  which  would  be  really  the  acme  of  self-set  king. 
On  the  other  hand,  presented  as  the  continuous  act  of  God  Himself,  as  the 
eternal  self-surrender  of  the  Divine  Son  to  the  Father,  it  is  for  us  and  may 
be  in  as,  but  is  not  of  us.  Nay,  it  is  just  because  not  of  us,  that  it  may  be 
in  OS.  Because  it  is  the  mind  of  Christ,  and  Christ  is  God's,  in  the  contem- 
platioQ  of  it  we  are  taken  out  of  ourselves,  we  slip  the  natural  man  and 
appropriate  that  mind  which  we  behold.  Constrained  by  God's  manifested 
love,  we  cease  to  be  our  own  that  Christ  may  become  ours'  (7>4*  IVitness  4^ 
Gtd,  pp.  7-10). 

We  may  quote  lastly  an  estimate  of  the  Pauline  conception  in  the  history 
of  Religion.  '  It  is  in  Christendom  that,  according  to  the  providence  of  God, 
this  power  has  been  exhibited  ;  not  indeed  either  adequately  or  exclusively, 
but  most  fully.  In  the  religions  of  the  East,  the  idea  of  a  death  to  the 
fleshly  self  as  the  end  of  the  merely  human,  and  the  beginning  of  a  divine 
life,  bias  not  been  wanting ;  nor,  as  a  mere  idea,  has  it  been  very  different  from 
that  which  is  the  ground  of  Christianity.  But  there  it  has  never  been 
realized  in  action,  either  intellectually  or  morally.  The  idea  of  the  with- 
drawal from  sense  has  remained  abstract.  It  has  not  issued  in  such  a  struggle 
with  the  superficial  view  of  things,  as  has  gradually  constituted  the  science 
of  Christendom.  In  like  manner  that  of  self-renunciation  has  never  emerged 
from  the  esoteric  state.  It  has  had  no  outlet  into  the  life  of  charity,  but 
a  back-way  always  open  into  the  life  of  sensual  licence,  and  has  been  finally 
mechanized  in  the  artificial  vacancy  of  the  dervish  or  fakir'  {ibid.  p.  31). 

One  of  the  services  which  Mr.  Green's  lay  sermon  may  do  us  is  in  helping 
OS  to  understand — not  the  whole  but  part  of  the  remarkable  conception  of 
•  The  Way '  in  Dr.  Hort's  posthumous  Tht  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life 
(Cambridge and  London,  1893).  When  it  is  contended,  'first  that  the  whole 
teeming  maie  of  history  in  nature  and  man,  the  tumultuous  movement  of  the 
world  in  progress,  has  running  through  it  one  supreme  dominating  Way; 
and  second,  that  He  who  on  earth  was  called  Jesus  the  Nazarene  is  that 
Way'  {The  Way,  &c.  p.  aof.),  we  can  hardly  be  wrong,  though  the  point 
might  have  been  brou<;ht  out  more  clearly,  in  seeking  a  scriptnrjd  illustration 
In  St.  Paul's  teaching  as  to  the  Death,  Burial,  and  Resuirection  of  Christ. 
These  to  him  are  not  merely  isolated  historical  events  which  took  place  once 
for  all  in  the  past.  They  did  so  take  place,  and  their  historical  reality,  as 
well  as  their  direct  significance  in  the  Redemption  wrought  out  by  Chiist, 
must  be  insisted  upon.  But  they  are  more  than  this :  they  constitute  a  law, 
a  predisposed  pattern  or  plan,  which  other  human  lives  have  to  follow. 
'  Death  imto  life,' '  life  growing  out  of  death,'  is  the  inner  principle  or  secret, 
applied  in  an  indefinite  variety  of  ways,  but  running  through  the  history  of 
most,  perhaps  all,  religious  aspiration  and  attainment.  Everywhere  there 
must  be  the  death  of  aa  old  vM  and  the  birth  of  a  new.    It  must  b« 


l66  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [VI.  16-28. 

admitted  that  the  group  of  conceptions  anited  by  St.  Panl,  and,  h  it  wooM 
•ecm,  yet  more  widely  extended  by  St.  John,  is  difficult  to  grasp  intellectnally, 
and  has  doubtless  been  acted  upon  in  many  a  simple  unspeculative  life  is 
which  there  was  never  any  attempt  to  formulate  it  exactly  in  words.  Eut  tba 
conception  belongs  to  the  len<^th  and  depth  and  height  of  the  Gospel :  here, 
as  we  see  it  in  St.  Paul,  it  bears  all  the  impress  of  his  intense  and  prophet- 
like penetration  :  and  there  can  b*  little  doubt  that  it  is  capiable  of  exercising 
a  stronger  and  more  dominating  influence  on  tht  Christian  consciousnesi 
than  it  has  done.  This  must  be  our  excuse  for  expanding  the  doctrine  at 
rather  considerable  length,  and  for  inToking  the  assistance  of  those  who,  just 
by  their  detachment  from  ordinary  and  traditional  Christianity,  have  brought 
to  bear  a  freshness  of  insight  in  certain  directions  which  has  led  them,  if  not 
exactly  to  discoveries,  yet  to  new  and  vivid  realizatioa  of  truths  which  to 
indolent  minds  are  obscored  by  their  vety  familiarity. 


THE  TRANSITIOH  FROM  ULW  TO  OBACS. 

ANALOGY  OF  SLAVERY. 

VI.  16-23.  Takg  an  illustration  from  common  life — tk* 
condition  of  slavery.  The  Christian  was  a  slave  of  sin; 
his  business  was  unc leanness ;  his  wages,  death.  But  h$ 
has  been  emancipated  from  this  service,  only  to  tnter  upon 
another — that  of  Righteousness. 

"Am  I  told  that  we  should  take  advantage  of  oor  liberty  at 
subjects  of  Grace  and  not  of  Law,  to  sin  ?  Impossible !  *•  Are 
you  not  aware  that  to  render  service  and  obedience  to  any  one  is 
to  be  the  slave  of  that  person  or  power  to  which  obedience  ia 
rendered?  And  so  it  is  here.  Yon  are  either  slaves  <rf  Sin,  and 
the  end  before  you  death ;  or  you  are  true  to  your  rightful  Master, 
and  the  end  before  you  righteousness.  '^But,  thank  God,  the 
time  is  past  when  you  were  slaves  of  Sin  ;  and  at  your  baptism  yoo 
gave  cordial  assent  to  that  standard  of  life  and  conduct  in  which 
you  were  first  instructed  and  to  the  guidance  of  which  you  wera 
then  handed  over  by  your  teachers.  "  Thus  you  were  emancipated 
from  the  service  of  Sin,  and  were  transferred  to  the  service  ol 
Righteousness. 

'•  I  am  using  a  figure  of  speech  taken  from  erery-day  human 
relations.  If  '  servitude '  seems  a  poor  and  harsh  metaphor,  it  is 
one  which  the  remains  of  the  natural  man  that  still  cling  about  you 
will  at  least  permit  you  to  understand.  Yours  must  be  an  «»- 
Hvidtd  service.     Devote  the  members  of  your  body  as  unreservedly 


VI.  15-88.)  LAW  AND  GRACE  lf>7 

to  the  service  of  righteousness  for  progressive  consecration  to  God, 
as  you  once  devoted  them  to  Pagan  uncleanness  and  daily  increas- 
ing licence.  ••  I  exhort  you  to  this.  Why  ?  Because  while  you 
were  slaves  to  Sin,  you  were  freemen  in  regard  to  Righteousness. 
"  What  good  then  did  you  get  from  conduct  which  you  now  blush 
to  think  of?  Much  indeed !  For  the  goal  to  which  it  leads  b 
death.  "  But  now  that,  as  Christians,  you  are  emancipated  from 
Sin  and  enslaved  to  God,  you  have  something  to  show  for  your 
service — closer  and  fuller  consecration,  and  your  goal,  eternal  Life  I 
••  For  the  wages  which  Sin  pays  its  votaries  is  Death ;  while  you 
receive — no  wages,  but  the  bountiful  gift  of  God,  the  eternal  Life, 
which  is  ours  through  our  union  with  Jesus  Messiah,  our  Lord. 

16-28.  The  next  two  sections  (vi.  15-23 ;  vii.  1-6)  might  be 
described  summarily  as  a  description  of  the  Christian's  release,  what 
it  is  and  what  it  is  not  The  receiving  of  Christian  Baptism  was 
a  great  dividing-line  across  a  man's  career.  In  it  he  entered  into 
a  wholly  new  relation  of  self-identification  with  Christ  which  was 
fraught  with  momentous  consequences  looking  both  backwards  and 
forwards.  From  his  sin-stained  past  he  was  cut  off  as  it  were  by 
death :  towards  the  future  he  turned  radiant  with  the  quickening 
influence  of  a  new  life.  St.  Paul  now  more  fully  expounds  the 
nature  of  the  change.  He  does  so  by  the  help  of  two  illustrations, 
one  from  the  state  of  slavery,  the  other  from  the  state  of  wedlock. 
Each  state  implied  certain  ties,  like  those  by  which  the  convert  to 
Christianity  was  bound  before  his  conversion.  But  the  cessation  of 
these  ties  does  not  carry  with  it  the  cessation  of  all  ties ;  it  only 
means  the  substitution  of  new  ties  for  the  old.  So  is  it  with  the 
slave,  who  is  emancipated  from  one  service  only  to  enter  upon 
another.  So  is  it  with  the  wife  who,  when  released  by  the  death  of 
one  husband,  is  free  to  marry  again.  In  the  remaining  verses  of 
this  chapter  St  Paul  deals  with  the  case  of  Slavery.  Emancipation 
from  Sin  is  but  the  prelude  to  a  new  service  of  Righteousness. 

16.  The  Apostle  once  more  reverts  to  the  point  raised  at  the 
beginning  of  the  chapter,  but  with  the  variation  that  the  incentive 
to  sin  is  no  longer  the  seeming  good  which  Sin  works  by  calling 
down  grace,  but  the  freedom  of  the  state  of  grace  as  opposed  to  the 
strictness  of  the  Law.  St.  Paul's  reply  in  effect  is  that  Christian 
freedom  consists  not  in  freedom  to  sin  but  in  freedom  from  sin. 

&fiapr<jau|Mv :  from  •  late  aor.  ^/iaprrjaa,  found  in  LXX  (Veitch,  /rreg. 
Vtrbs,  p.  49).     Chiys.  c»dd.  Tbeodrt.  aixl  otbcn,  with  minuscules,  it»A 

16.  A  general  proi>osition  to  which  oqr  Lord  Himself  had 


l68  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VI.  16-19. 

appealed  in  'No  man  can  serve  two  masters'  (Matt.  vi.  14).  There 
are  still  nearer  parallels  in  John  viii.  34 ;  a  Pet.  ii.  19 :  passages 
however  which  do  not  so  much  prove  direct  dependence  on  St  Paul 
as  that  the  thought  was  'in  the  air'  and  might  occur  to  more 
writers  than  one. 

fJTOi  .  .  .  f| :  these  disjnnctlret  state  a  dilemma  In  a  lively  and  emphatic 
way,  implying  that  one  limb  or  the  other  mnst  bt  chosen  (Baomlein,  Pmt- 
tiktlUhr*,  p.  344 ;  Kiibner,  Grmm.  §  540.  5). 

17.  els  8r  .  .  .  SiSaxfjt :  Stands  for  [imrfKovvaTt^  rvna  fii^axlft  tU 
iv  naptd66r]T:  We  expect  rather  tt  iftlv  naptdodrj :  it  seems  more 
natural  to  say  that  the  teaching  is  handed  over  to  the  persons 
taught  than  that  the  persons  taught  are  handed  over  to  the  teach- 
ing. The  form  of  phrase  which  St.  Paul  uses  however  expresses 
well  the  experience  of  Christian  converts.  Before  baptism  they 
underwent  a  course  of  simple  instruction,  like  that  in  the  '  Two 
Ways'  or  first  part  of  the  Dt'dacA/ (see  the  reff.  in  Hatch,  Ht'iberi 
Lectures,  p.  314).  With  baptism  this  course  of  instruction  ceased, 
and  they  were  left  with  its  results  impressed  upon  their  minds. 
This  was  to  be  henceforth  their  standard  of  living. 

TuiroK  SiSaxTJs.  For  Tvnos  see  the  note  on  ch.  ▼.  14.  The  third 
of  the  senses  there  given  ('  pattern,'  '  exemplar,'  '  standard ')  is  by 
far  the  most  usual  with  St  Paul,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
that  is  the  meaning  here.     So  among  the  ancients  Chrys.  (m  fit  i 

Tvnos  Tfjs  iiiaxrjsl  6p6a>t  (rjv  xol  fttrii  noiKiTtiat  dp't(Trf]s)  Euthym.-Zig, 
(fit   rviroy,    ijyovp   rov    Kav6va   Ktti    opov  rrjs   tia-f^nvs    noXiTtias),    and 

among  moderns  all  the  English  commentators  with  Oltr.  and  Lips. 
To  suppose,  as  some  leading  Continental  scholars  (De  W.  Mey.-W. 
Go.)  have  done,  that  some  special  '  type  of  doctrine/  whether 
Jewish-Christian  or  Pauline,  is  meant,  is  to  look  with  the  eyes  of 
the  nineteenth  century  and  not  with  those  of  the  first  (cf.  Hort, 
Jiom.  and  Eph.  p.  3a  'Nothing  like  this  notion  of  a  plurality  of 
Christian  two*  ii^axrjs  occurs  anywhere  else  in  the  N.  "r.,  and  it  is 
quite  out  of  harmony  with  the  context '). 

19.  dvOpwiTiKOK  X^y».  St  Paul  uses  this  form  of  phrase  (ct 
Gal.  iii.  15  Kara  avBpanov  Xryw)  where  he  wishes  to  apologize  for 
having  recourse  to  some  common  (or  as  he  would  have  called  it 
•  carnal ')  illustration  to  express  spiritual  truths.  So  Chrys.  (first 
explanation)  i><Ta»t\  Tkrytr,  diri  ivOpmntiwv  Xoytv/xwi',  am*  rmv  i» 
ovyrjSdf  yipvfiiviav. 

Sid  TT)r  &aQiytteu^  tt]$  vapx^.  Two  explanations  are  possible : 
(i)  '  because  of  the  moral  hindrances  which  prevent  the  practice  of 
Christianity'  (Chrys.  Theodrt  Weiss  and  others);  (a)  'because 
of  the  difficulties  of  apprehension,  from  defective  spiritual  experi- 
ence, which  prevent  the  understanding  of  its  deeper  truths'  (most 
moderna).    Clearly  this  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  context    la 


VI.  19-ai]  LAW  AND  GRACE  IO9 

any  case  the  clause  refers  to  what  has  gone  before,  not  (as  Orig. 
Chrys.,  &c.)  to  what  follows. 

trAp(  •■  hnman  nature  in  iti  weakness,  primarily  physical  and  moral,  bnt 
•ecoiidarily  intellectual.  It  is  intellectual  weakness  in  so  far  as  this  is  deter- 
mined by  moral,  by  the  limitations  of  character :  cf.  <ppoveiv  tA  t^j  ffapitSs, 
4>p6yt)fia  riji  aapKos  Rom.  viii.  5  f.  ;  ao^pol  tcaraL  odpna  1  Cor.  i,  26.  The 
idea  of  this  passage  is  similar  to  that  of  i  Cor.  iii.  a  -^AKa  iifios  iv6riaa,  oi 

rfi  AKaOapvi^.  oKaffapata  and  avofua  fitly  describe  the  characteristic 
features  of  Pagan  life  (cf.  i.  24  ff.).  As  throughout  the  context  these 
forms  of  sin  are  personified;  they  obtain  a  mastery  over  the  man; 
and  tis  T^v  dvofiioM  describes  the  effect  of  that  mastery — 'to  the 
practice  of  iniquity.'  With  these  verses  (19-ai)  compare  especially 
I  Pet.  iv.  1-5. 

CIS  dyiao-|ji6r.  Mey.  (but  not  Weiss)  Lips.  Oltr.  Go.  would  make 
Ayia(rn6s  here  practically  =  Ayiojavvri,  i.  e.  not  so  much  the  process  of 
consecration  as  the  result  of  the  process.  There  is  certainly  this 
tendency  in  language ;  and  in  some  of  the  places  in  which  the  word 
Is  used  it  seems  to  have  the  sense  of  the  resulting  state  (e.  g.  i  Thess. 
iv.  4,  where  it  is  joined  with  rififj;  i  Tim.  ii.  15,  where  it  is  joined 
with  irttTTjr  and  dydnri).  But  in  the  present  passage  the  word  may 
well  retain  its  proper  meaning  :  the  members  are  to  be  handed  over 
to  Righteousness  to  be  (gradually)  made  fit  for  God's  service,  not 
to  become  fit  all  at  once.  So  Weiss  Gif.  Va.  Mou.  ('course  of 
purification').  For  the  radical  meaning  see  the  note  on  dyios 
ch.  i.  7,  and  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  Hebrews,  p.  ao6 :  dyiavixos  =  '  the 
process  of  fitting  for  acceptable  worship/  a  sense  which  comes 

out  clearly  in    Heb.  xii.  14  St<a«r«   .  .  .  rhv  iyia(Tn6v  oi  x^^p"^^  oiSelt 

iyjrtrai  top  Kvpiov.    The  word  occurs  some  ten  times  (two  w.  11.) 
in  LXX  and  in  Ps.  Sol,  xvii.  33,  but  is  not  classical 

21.  Tii'o  oSk  . . .  iwoiirxuVeaOe  ;  Where  does  the  question  end  and 
the  answer  begin?  (i)  Most  English  commentators  and  critics 
(Treg.  WH.  RV,  as  well  as  Gif.  Va.)  carry  on  the  question  to 
/rraio-xvwo-tff.  In  that  case  €<«';/&»»>  must  be  supplied  before  e<^'  oU, 
and  its  omission  might  be  due  to  the  reflex  effect  of  fKfipav  in  the 
sentence  following  (comp.  dnodavovrtt  iv  ^  KaT€ix6fieSa  vii.  6  below). 
There  would  then  be  a  common  enough  ellipse  before  ri  yap  reXos, 
'  What  fruit  had  ye  ...  ?  [None :]  for  the  end,'  &c.  (a)  On  the 
other  hand  several  leading  Germans  (Tisch.  Weiss  Lips.,  though 
not  Mey.)  put  the  question  at  Tore,  and  make  (cj)'  <hs  ^Traitrxivfadt 
part  of  the  answer.  '  What  fruit  had  ye  then  ?  Things  [pleasures, 
gratifications  of  sense]  of  which  you  are  now  ashamed :  for  their 
end  is  death.'  So,  too,  Theod.-Mops.  (in  Cramer)  expressly :  ««■' 
tpa>Tr)ai9  dvayvwrriov  ri  riva  ovv  rndpnov  tlx«Tt  T«Jr«,  tira  Kara 
anoKpuruf  icp'  off  vv9  inanrxvpta^t.  Both  interpretations  are 
possible,  but  the  former,  as  it  would  seem,  is  more  simple  and  natural 


I  TO  BPISTLK  TX>  THE  ROMANS  |^VII.  l-« 

(Gif.).  When  two  phrases  link  together  so  easily  as  i(l>'  ols  tfmtax. 
with  what  precedes,  it  b  a  mistake  to  separate  them  except  for 
strong  reasons ;  nor  does  there  appear  to  be  sufficient  ground  for 
distinguishing  between  near  consequences  and  remote. 

tA  Y<)^p :  ri  nhr  yip  K«  B  D*  E  F  G.  There  is  the  nsxuA  ambignity  of 
readings  in  which  B  alone  joins  the  Western  authorities.  The  probability  ii 
that  the  reading  belongs  to  the  Western  element  im  B,  and  that  /utf  was 
introduced  through  erroneous  antithesis  to  rvvl  Si. 

83.  6«)f(dVia.  From  a  root  new-  we  get  iipai,  oif/ov,  'cooked'  meat,  fiih,  dec 
as  contrasted  with  bread.  Hence  the  compound  dtf/wnov  (iiviontu,  *  to  buy  *)  — 
(i^  provision-money,  ration-money,  or  the  rations  in  kind  given  to  troops; 
(j)  in  a  more  general  sense,  'wages.'  The  word  is  said  to  have  come  ia 
with  Menander :  it  is  proscribed  by  the  Atticists,  but  fomnd  freely  in  Polybius, 
I  Mace.  &c.  (Sturt,  Dial.  Mactd.  p.  187). 

\(uf\.<xy.<x,  Tertullian,  with  his  nsnal  pictnresqne  boldness,  translates  this  by 
donativum  {D$  Res.  Cam.c.  47  Stiftndia  tnim  delinqtunticu  m^rs,  donaiirmm 
omtem  dei  vita  aetema).  It  is  not  probable  that  St.  Panl  had  this  particular 
antithesis  ia  his  mind,  though  no  doubt  he  intends  to  contraat  i^tiniM  and 


TEB  TBAKSmON  TBOM  LAW  TO  OBACB. 
ANALOGY  OF  MABRIAOB. 

VII.  1-6.  Take  another  illustration  from  the  Law  of 
Marriage.  The  Marriage  Law  only  binds  a  woman  while 
her  husband  lives.  So  with  the  Christian.  He  was  wedded^ 
as  it  were,  to  his  old  sinful  state  ;  and  all  tJtat  time  he  was 
subject  to  the  law  applicable  to  that  state.  But  this  old  life 
of  his  was  killed  through  his  identification  with  the  death  oj 
Christ;  so  as  to  set  him  free  to  contract  a  new  marriage— 
with  Christ,  no  longer  dead  but  risen:  and  the  fruit  of  that 
marriage  should  be  a  new  life  quickened  by  the  Spirit. 

*  I  say  that  yon  are  free  from  the  Law  of  Moses  and  from  Sin. 
You  will  see  how :  unless  you  need  to  be  reminded  of  a  fact  whicb 
your  acquaintance  with  the  nature  of  Law  will  readily  suggest  to 
you,  that  Law,  for  the  man  who  comes  under  it,  is  only  in  force 
during  his  lifetime.  'Thus  for  instance  a  woman  in  wedlock  ii 
forbidden  by  law  to  desert  her  Uving  husband.  But  if  her  husband 
should  die,  she  is  absolved  from  the  provisions  of  the  statute  '  Of 
the  Husband.'  'Hence  while  her  husband  is  alive,  she  will  be 
styled   'an   adulteress'  if  she   marry  another  man:    but  if  hei 


VII.  1-6.]  LAW  AND  GRACE  171 

husband  die,  she  is  free  from  that  statute,  so  that  no  one  can  call 
her  an  adulteress,  though  she  be  married  to  another  man. 

*We  may  apply  this  in  an  allegory,  in  which  the  wife  is  the 
Christian's  '  self '  or  '  ego ' ;  the  first  husband,  his  old  unregenerate 
State,  burdened  with  all  the  penalties  attaching  to  it 

You  then,  my  brethren  in  Christ,  had  this  old  state  killed  in  you 
— brought  to  an  abrupt  and  violent  end — by  yova  identification 
with  the  crucified  Christ,  whose  death  you  reproduce  spiritually. 
And  this  death  of  your  old  self  left  you  free  to  enter  upon  a  new 
marriage  with  the  same  Christ,  who  triumphed  over  death — 
a  triumph  in  which  you  too  share — that  in  union  with  Him  you, 
and  indeed  all  of  us  Christians,  may  be  fruitful  in  good  works,  to 
the  glory  and  praise  of  God.  •  Our  new  marriage  must  be  fruitful, 
as  our  old  marriage  was.  When  we  had  nothing  better  to  guide 
us  than  this  frail  humanity  of  ours,  so  liable  to  temptation,  at  that 
time  too  a  process  of  generation  was  going  on.  The  impressions 
of  sense,  suggestive  of  sin,  stimulated  into  perverse  activity  by  their 
legal  prohibition,  kept  plying  this  bodily  organism  of  ours  in  such 
a  way  as  to  engender  acts  that  only  went  to  swell  the  gamers  of 
Death.  '  But  now  all  that  has  been  brought  to  an  end.  Law  and 
the  state  of  sin  are  so  inextricably  linked  together,  that  in  dying,  at 
our  baptism,  a  moral  death,  to  that  old  state  of  sin  we  were  absolved 
or  discharged  from  the  Law,  which  used  to  hold  us  prisoners  under 
the  penalties  to  which  sin  laid  us  open.  And  through  this  discharge 
we  are  enabled  to  serve  God  in  a  new  state,  the  ruling  principle  of 
which  is  Spirit,  in  place  of  that  old  state,  presided  over  by  Written 
Law. 

1-6.  The  text  of  this  section — and  indeed  of  the  whole  chapter 
— ^is  still,  '  Ye  are  not  under  Law,  but  under  Grace ' ;  and  the 
Apostle  brings  forward  another  illustration  to  show  how  the  transi- 
tion from  Law  to  Grace  has  been  effected,  and  what  should  be  its 
consequences. 

In  the  working  out  of  this  illustration  there  is  a  certain  amount 
of  intricacy,  due  to  an  apparent  shifting  of  the  stand-point  in  the 
middle  of  the  paragraph.  The  Apostle  begins  by  showing  how 
with  the  death  of  her  husband  the  law  which  binds  a  married 
woman  becomes  a  dead  letter.  He  goes  on  to  say  in  the 
application,  not  *  The  Law  is  dead  to  you,'  but '  You  arc  dead  to 
the  Law' — which  looks  like  a  change  of  position,  though  a 
legitimate  ont. 


1 7*  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VII.  1,  1 

Gif.  however  may  be  right  in  explaining  the  transition  rathei 
differently,  viz.  by  means  of  the  naXtuos  avOpanos  of  ch.  vi.  6.  The 
'  self  of  the  man  is  double ;  there  is  an  '  old  self  and  a  '  new  self '; 
or  rather  the  'self  remains  the  same  throughout,  but  it  passei 
through  different  states,  or  phases.  Bearing  this  in  mind  we  shall 
find  the  metaphor  work  out  consistently. 

The  Wife  s:  the  true  self,  or  ego,  which  is  permanent  through 

all  change. 
The   (first)  Husband  s  the  old   state  before  conversion  to 

Christianity. 
The  'law  of  the  husband' s  the  Uw  which  condenmed  that  old 

state. 
The  new  Marriage  s  the  union  upon  which  the  convert  enters 

with  Christ 

The  crucial  phrase  is  vfi«is  idaparioQrfn  in  ver.  4.  According  to 
the  way  in  which  we  explain  this  will  be  our  explanation  of  the 
whole  passage.     See  the  note  ad  loc. 

There  is  yet  another  train  of  thought  which  comes  in  with 
w.  4-6.  The  idea  of  marriage  naturally  suggests  the  offspring  of 
marriage.  In  the  case  of  the  Christian  the  fruit  of  his  umon  with 
Christ  is  a  holy  life. 

L  *H  dycociTC :  [*  surely  you  know  this — that  the  regime  of  Law 
has  come  to  an  end,  and  that  Grace  has  superseded  it.]  Or  do  you 
require  to  be  told  that  death  closes  all  accounts,  and  therefore  that 
the  state  of  things  to  which  Law  belongs  ceased  through  the  death 
of  the  Christian  with  Christ — that  mystical  death  spoken  of  in  the 
last  chapter  ? ' 

yivcSffKoucri  yAp  i^jioi'  XaXA:  '  I  speak '  (lit  *  am  talking ')  '  to  men 
acquainted  with  Law.'  At  once  the  absence  of  the  article  and  the 
nature  of  the  case  go  to  show  that  what  is  meant  here  is  not 
Roman  Law  (Weiss),  of  which  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
St.  Paul  would  possess  any  detailed  knowledge,  nor  yet  the  Law  of 
Moses  more  particularly  considered  (Lips.),  but  a  general  principle 
of  all  Law ;  an  obvious  axiom  of  political  justice — that  death  clears 
all  scores,  and  that  a  dead  man  can  no  longer  be  prosecuted  or 
punished  (cf.  Hort,  Rom.  and  Eph.  p.  14). 

2.  ^  Y^P  •JwoKSpos  yuin^ :  ['  the  truth  of  this  may  be  proved  by 
a  case  in  point.]  For  a  woman  in  the  state  of  wedlock  is  bound 
by  law  to  her  living  husband.'  vm-aydpor :  a  classical  word,  found 
inLXX. 

KoWipyijTou :  Ms  completely  (perf.)  absolved  or  discharged '  (lit 
*  nullified '  or  '  annulled,'  her  status  as  a  wife  is  abolished).  The 
two  correlative  phrases  are  treated  by  St.  Paul  as  practically 
convertible :  '  the  woman  is  annulled  from  the  law/  and  '  the  law 
it  annulled  to  the  woman.'    For  marapr/w  see  on  iiL  3. 


VII.  2-4.]  LAW  AND  GRACE  173 

dir&  T08  t^ftou  ToS  Mp6^ :  from  that  section  of  the  statute-book 
which  is  headed  '  The  Husband,'  the  section  which  lavs  down  hie 
rights  and  duties.  Gif.  compares  '  the  law  of  the  leper  Lev.  xiv.  a ; 
'the  law  of  the  Nazirite'  Num.  vi.  13. 

9.  xpy\\uirl<T^i,  The  meanings  of  xpVI**'^''^^C*"'  niniify  la  two  directions. 
The  fondamental  idea  is  that  of  '  transacting  business '  or  '  managing  affairs.' 
Hence  we  get  on  the  one  hand,  from  the  notion  of  doing  business  under 
a  certain  name,  from  Polybius  onwards  (i)  'to  bear  a  name  or  title  *  (xpvf^- 
Ti(*t  ^aaiKtvt  Polyb.  V.  Ivii.  a) ;  and  so  simply,  as  here,  '  to  be  called  ot 
styled '  (Acts  zi.  a6  ifivtro  .  .  .  xpTjijariaai  npwTor  ir  'Avrioxfi(f  Toiit  fMOrfrSit 
Xptariayovs)  ;  and  on  the  other  hand  (3)  from  the  notion  of  '  having  dealings 
with,'  'giving  audience  to'  a  person,  in  a  special  sense,  of  the  'answers, 
communications,  revelations,'  given  by  an  oracle  or  by  God.  So  six  times 
fai  LXX  of  Jerem.,  Joseph.  Antiq.,  Plutarch,  &c.  From  this  sense  we  get 
pass,  'to  be  warned  or  admonished'  by  God  (Matt.  iL  la,  aa;  Acts  x.  aa ; 
neb.  viii.  5 ;  xi.  7).  Hence  also  subst.  xprjfianaijulu,  '  a  Divine  or  oracular 
response,'  s  Mace.  ii.  4 ;  Rom.  xi.  4.  Burton  {M.  and  T.  |  69)  calls  the 
fat  here  a  '  gnomic  future '  aa  stating  '  what  will  customarily  happen  when 
occasion  offers.' 

ToO  |xt^  ctvoi  ■■  S)aT9  ttveu :  the  stren  is  thrown  back  upon  iKnffipa,  *  ao 
•s  not  to  be,'  '  causing  her  not  to  be,' — not  '  ao  that  she  is.'  According  to 
Barton  rod  n^  here  denotes  'conceived  result';  bat  see  the  note  on  aart 
tov\(iifty  in  ver.  6  below. 

4.  Stvn  with  indie  introduces  a  consequence  which  foUowa  aa  a  matter 
of  fact 

ftal  0{jiflif  c9aKaT<S9i|Tf.  We  have  said  that  the  exact  interpreta- 
tion of  the  whole  passage  turns  upon  this  phrase.  It  is  commonly 
explained  as  another  way  of  saying  '  You  had  the  Law  killed  to 

you.'  So  Chrys.  aieSXovdop  ^p  tlvt'iv,  rov  p6fiov  T*\n>TT}<ravrot  ev  KpimaB* 
fuux'iatt  apbpX  ytv6nevoi  iriptf.  *AXX*  qvk  tiwtv  ovrvf,  aXX^  rrit',  'Edava' 
rt»6tfTt  Tf  p6n<f  (cf.  £uthym.-Zig.).  In  favour  of  this  is  the  parallel 
Karripyi^at  air6  rov  p6ftov  rov  dvdp6s  in  Ver.  2,  and  Ka-njpyTjdTjfttv  <ifr6  rov 

p6fiov  in  ver.  6.  But  on  the  other  hand  it  is  strange  to  speak  of  the 
same  persons  at  one  moment  as  '  killed '  and  the  next  as  '  married 
again.'  There  is  therefore  a  strong  attraction  in  the  explanation  of 
Gif.,  who  makes  vfuU  as  not  the  whole  self  but  the  old  self,  f.  *.  the 
old  state  of  the  self  which  was  really  'crucified  with  Christ' 
(ch.  vi.  6),  and  the  death  of  which  really  leaves  the  man  («  the  wife 
in  the  allegory)  free  to  contract  a  new  union.  This  moral  death 
of  the  Christian  to  his  past  also  does  away  with  the  Law.  The 
Law  had  its  hold  upon  him  only  through  sin;  but  in  discarding 
his  sins  he  discards  also  the  pains  and  penalties  which  attached  to 
them.  Nothing  can  touch  him  further.  His  old  heathen  or  Jewish 
antecedents  have  passed  away ;  he  is  under  ob/igation  only  to  Christ 

■ol  ^<tt.  The  force  of  aol  here  is,  'Yob,  my  readers,  aa  well  aa  the  wifii 
in  the  allegory.' 

%iA  ToG  a«S|iaTo«  to8  XpioroS.  The  way  in  which  the  death  of 
the  '  old  man '  is  brought  about  is  through  the  identification  of  the 


174  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VII.  4,  ft. 

Christian  with  the  Death  of  Christ  The  Christian  takes  his  place, 
as  it  were,  with  Christ  upon  the  Cross,  and  there  has  his  old  self 
crucified.  The  'body'  of  Christ  here  meant  is  the  'crucified 
body':  the  Christian  shares  in  that  crucifixion,  and  so  gets  rid 
of  his  sinful  past  We  are  thus  taken  back  to  the  symbolism  of  the 
last  chapter  (vi.  6),  to  which  St.  Paul  also  throws  in  an  allusion 
in  T«  «K  vtKpSyr  iytpBivri.  The  two  Unes  of  symbolism  real!/  mn 
parallel  to  each  other  and  it  is  easy  to  connect  them. 

6  vakaibt  SuBpanot  at  The  Husband : 

Crucifixion  of  the  iraX.  avB.  =  Death  of  the  Husband : 

Resiu-rection  =  Re-Marriage : 

Qv,  dovX«ufty  ru  6(^  ss  Kapnocpopt'iP  r^  &t^. 

•It  rd  y€via-9aK  (p,&s  iriptf.  Lipt.  takes  tliis  not  of  'being  married  tD 
another  husband,'  but  of 'joining  another  master,*  on  the  ground  that  there 
is  no  marriage  to  the  Law.  This  however  (i)  is  unnecessary,  because 
marriage  to  the  '  old  man '  carries  with  it  sutyection  to  the  Law,  so  that  the 
dissolution  of  the  marriage  involves  release  from  the  Law  by  a  ste;)  which  ia 
close  and  inevitable ;  (a)  it  is  wrong,  because  of  KapiTo<popfj(Tcu,  which  it  is 
clearly  forced  and  against  the  context  to  refer,  as  Lipt.  does,  to  anything  bat 
the  ofispring  of  marriage. 

Kapiro(^opi^awfic»'  tw  0cm.  The  natural  sequel  to  the  metaphor  of 
'  Marriage.'  The  '  fruit '  which  the  Christian,  wedded  to  Christ,  is 
to  bear  is  of  course  that  of  a  reformed  life. 

6.  ore  yAp  ^/iCK  iv  rg  <rapKi.  This  verse  develops  the  idea  con- 
tained in  Kapno(f)npfi(TKfif» :  the  new  marriage  ought  to  be  fruitful, 
because  the  old  one  was.  tli»u  iv  rf}  vapid  is  the  opposite  of  fltxu 
€P  T«  npfvfioTi :  the  one  is  a  life  which  has  no  higher  object  than 
the  gratification  of  the  senses,  the  other  is  a  life  permeated  by  the 
Spirit.  Although  aap^  is  human  nature  especially  on  the  side  of 
its  frailty,  it  does  not  follow  that  there  is  any  dualism  in  St  Paul's 
conception  or  that  he  regards  the  body  as  inherently  sinful. 
Indeed  this  very  passage  proves  the  contrary.  It  implies  that  it 
is  possible  to  be  '  in  the  body '  without  being  '  in  the  flesh.'  The 
body,  as  such,  is  plastic  to  influences  of  either  kind :  it  may  be 
worked  upon  by  Sin  through  the  senses,  or  it  may  be  worked  upon 
by  the  Spirit  In  either  case  the  motive-force  comes  from  without 
The  body  itself  is  neutral.  See  esp.  the  excellent  discussion  in 
Gifford,  pp.  48-53. 

rd  iraOii^fiaTa  tui^  AiAapTiuK:  wdBrjfia  has  the  same  sort  of  ambiguity 
as  our  word  '  passion.'  It  means  (i)  an  '  impression,'  esp.  a '  pain- 
ful impression '  or  suffering ;  (a)  the  reaction  which  follows  upon 
some  strong  impression  of  sense  (cf.  Gal.  v.  14).  The  gen.  r«p 
oftapriMp  s  '  connected  with  sins,'  '  leading  to  sins.' 

Td  8id  Tov  ra'jjiou.  Here  St  Paul,  as  hit  maimer  is,  '  throws 
up  a  finger-post '  which  points  to  the  coming  section  of  his  argu- 
Btant    The  phrase  did  r*v  p6tt»v  is  explained  at  length  in  the  nexJ 


VU.  6,  6.]  LAW  AND  GRACE  175 

paragraph :   it  refers  to  the  effect  of  Law  in  calling   forth  and 
aggravating  sin. 

ivr]pytlTo.  The  pricks  and  stings  of  passion  were  active  in  our 
members  (cf.  I  Thess.  ii.  13;   •  Thess.  ii.  7 ;   1  Cor.  i.  6,  ir.  la ; 

Gal.  V.  6,  &c.). 

T»  Oavdra :  daf.  commodi,  contrasted  with  Kapnotft.  r^  Qta  above. 

6.  wv\  hi  Karrjpyi^OTjfiei'  diri  too  coijou.  '  But  as  it  is  we  '  (in  our 
peccant  part,  the  old  man)  '  were  discharged  or  annulled  from  the 
Law  '  {;'.  e.  we  had  an  end  put  to  our  relations  with  the  Law ;  by 
the  death  of  our  old  man  there  was  nothing  left  on  which  the  Law 
could  wreak  its  vengeance;  we  were  'struck  with  atrophy'  in 
respect  to  it :  see  on  ver.  a),    vin  fjiitlt  KaTrjpyfidrjfifp ;  roC  Karsxofifvov 

napa   t^s    afiapriat   avdpaiTrov  nakaiov  dirodapdvros  Kai  Ta(f)tvrot   Chrys. 

We  observe  how  Chrys.  here  practically  comes  round  to  the  same 
side  as  Gif. 

The  rendering!  of  iiaTrfpyf)9rjp*v  are  rather  interetting,  and  show  the  difiB- 
culty  of  finding  an  exact  equivalent  in  other  languages:  tvacnati  sumus 
Tert. ;  scluti  mmus  Codd.  Clarom.  Sangerm.  Vulg.  (—'we  were  nn- 
bounden'  VVic. ;  'we  are  loosed'  Rhem.) ;  'we  are  delivered'  Tyn.  Cran. 
Genev.  AV. ;  'we  are  discharged'  RV. ;  nous  ttvons  Hi  digagis  Oltr.  (Z/ 
Nouveau  Test.,  Geneva,  1874);  nun  abtr  sind  wir  fur  das  G€stt»  uickt 
mekr  da  Weizsacker  {Das  Neue  Test.,  Freiburg  i.  B.  i88a,  ed.  2). 

diro9ov6vT€s.  AV.  apparently  read  avoOavovroi,  for  which  there  l>  no 
MS.  authority,  but  which  seems  to  be  derived  by  a  mistake  of  Beza  following 
Erasmus  from  a  comment  of  Chrysostom's  (see  Tisch.  md  lot.).  The 
Western  text  (D  E  F  G,  £odd.  ap.  Orig.-lat,  and  most  Latins)  boldly  corrects 
to  ToC  6a-  arov,  which  would  go  with  rov  vofiov,  and  which  gives  an  easier 
construction,  though  not  a  better  sense.  After  anQ9<w6vT*s  we  must  supply 
Itfciff ,  just  as  in  vi.  a  I  we  had  to  supply  iKtlvvw. 

Iv  <S  RaTcix^ficOa.  The  antecedent  of  rr  ^  is  taken  by  nearly  all 
commentators  as  equivalent  to  t^  v6pff  (whether  *'«t«ii^  or  Toira  is 
regarded  as  masc.  or  better  neutr.).  Gif.  argues  against  referring 
it  to  the  'old  state,'  'the  old  man,'  that  this  is  not  sufficiently 
suggested  by  the  context.  But  wherever  '  death '  is  spoken  of  it  is 
primarily  this  '  old  state,'  or  '  old  man '  which  dies,  so  that  the  use 
of  the  term  ano6av6vTti  alone  seems  enough  to  suggest  it  It  was 
this  old  sinful  state  which  brought  man  under  the  grip  of  the  Law ; 
when  the  sinful  life  ceased  the  Law  lost  its  hold. 

a<rr€  SouXeu'eir:  not  'so  that  we  serve'  (RV.  and  most  com- 
mentators), but  '  so  ox  /»  serve,'  i.  e.  '  enabling  us  to  serve.'  The 
stress  is  thrown  back  upon  KaTifpy^0t)fup, — we  were  so  completely 
discharged  as  to  set  us  free  to  serve. 

The  true  distinction  between  Siffrt  with  infin.  and  S/trrt  with  indie,  which  is 
not  always  observed  in  RV.,  is  well  stated  by  Goodwin,  Moods  and  Tenses,  ed, 
1889,  §  584  (with  the  quotation  from  Shilleto,  De  Fals.  Leg.  App.  in  the  note), 
tnd  for  N.  T.  by  the  late  Canon  T.  S.  Evans  in  the  Expos,  for  1883,  i.  3  ff. : 
£<rrc  with  indie,  states  the  definite  result  which  as  a  matter  of  fact  dou 
fallow  i  6«r«  with  infin.  states  the  contemplated  mnlt  which  in  the  natanJ 


176  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VII  7-2A 

eonne  mt/A/  /»  follow.  Siffrt  with  indie.  lay»  strew  on  the  effect;  iar*  with 
infin.  on  the  cause.  Thus  in  i  Cor.  i.  7  fiffr*  vartptiaOai  «•  'catising  ot 
inspiring  you  to  feel  behindhand'  (see  Sf.  Cotntn.  ad  lot.) ;  in  Matt.  xiii.  31 
•^ivtrai  SfvSpov,  Siart  i\6fiy  fd  wfTfivd  ical  icaTaaKr]vovy  »  '  becomes  a  tree 
iig^  enough  for  the  birds  to  some,'  &c.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  distinotioa 
corresponds  to  the  difference  in  the  general  character  of  the  tw«  moods. 

iv  Kair6Ti)Ti  vrcuftaros  .  .  .  iraXai^n  Yp({|j.}AOT0t.  In  each  case 
the  gen.  is  what  is  called  of  '  apposition ' :  it  denotes  that  in  which 
the  newness,  or  oldness,  consists.  The  essential  feature  of  the  new 
state  is  that  it  is  one  of '  Spirit';  of  the  old  state,  that  it  is  regulated 
by  '  written  Law.'  The  period  of  the  Paraclete  has  succeeded  to 
the  period  which  took  its  character  from  the  Sinaitic  legislation. 
The  Christian  life  turns  on  an  inspiration  from  above,  not  on  an 
elaborate  code  of  commands  and  prohibitions.  A  fuller  explanation 
of  the  iuuv6frr)t  nvtifiaTot  is  given  in  ch.  viii. 

It  is  perhaps  well  to  remind  the  reader  who  is  not  careful  t«  check  the 
study  of  the  English  versions  by  the  Greek  that  the  opposition  between 
ypa/jiixa  and  irvfvfia  is  not  exactly  identical  with  that  which  we  are  in  the 
habit  of  drawing  between  '  the  letter '  and  '  the  spirit '  as  the  '  literal '  and 
'  spiritual  sense '  of  a  writing.  In  this  antithesis  fpanna  is  with  St.  Paul 
always  the  I^w  of  Moses,  as  a  written  code,  while  nvtviM.  ic  the  operatioa 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  characteristic  of  Christianity  (c£  Rom.  ii.  39 ;  a  Cor.  tii.  6). 


LAW  ATSTD  SIN. 

VH.  7-26.    If  reUase  from  Sin  means  release  from  Law, 

must  we  then  identify  Law  with  Sin  ?  No.  Law  reveals 
the  sinfulness  of  Sin^  and  by  this  very  revelation  stirs  up  the 
dormant  Sin  to  cation.  But  this  is  not  because  the  Law 
itself  is  evil — on  the  contrary  it  is  good — but  that  Sin  may 
be  exposed  and  its  guilt  aggravated  (w.  7-13)- 

This  is  what  takes  place.  I  have  a  double  self.  But  n^ 
better  self  is  impotent  to  prevent  me  from  doing  wrottg 
(vv.  14-17).  //  is  equally  impotent  to  make  me  do  right 
(w.  18-21).  There  is  thus  a  constant  conflict  going  on, 
from  which,  unaided,  I  can  hope  for  no  deliverance.  But^ 
God  be  thanked,  through  Christ  deliverance  comes  I  (w. 
ai-25). 

'  I  spoke  a  moment  ago  of  sinful  passions  working  through  Law, 
and  of  the  death  to  Sin  as  carrying  with  it  a  release  from  the  Law. 
Does  it  follow  that  the  Law  itself  is  actually  a  form  of  Sin  ?     Aa 


VII.  7-86.)  LAW  AND  SW  177 

intolerable  thought !  On  the  contrary  it  was  the  Law  and  nothing 
else  through  which  I  learnt  the  true  nature  of  Sin.  For  instance, 
I  knew  the  sinfulness  of  covetous  or  illicit  desire  only  by  the  Law 
saying  *  Thou  shalt  not  covet.'  *  But  the  lurking  Sin  within  me 
started  into  activity,  and  by  the  help  of  that  express  command, 
provoking  to  that  which  it  prohibited,  led  me  into  all  kinds  of 
conscious  and  sinful  covetousness.  For  without  Law  to  bring  it 
out  Sin  Ues  dead — inert  and  passive.  '  And  while  sin  was  dead, 
I — my  inner  self — was  alive,  in  happy  unconsciousness,  following 
my  bent  with  no  pangs  of  conscience  excited  by  Law.  But  then 
came  this  Tenth  Commandment ;  and  with  its  coming  Sin  awoke 
to  life,  while  I — sad  and  tragic  contrast — died  the  living  death  of 
sin,  precursor  of  eternal  death.  ^*  And  the  commandment  which 
was  given  to  point  men  the  way  to  life,  this  very  commandment 
was  found  in  my  case  to  lead  to  death.  "  For  Sin  took  advantage 
of  it,  and  by  the  help  of  the  commandment — at  once  confronting 
me  with  the  knowledge  of  right  and  provoking  me  to  do  that 
which  was  wrong — it  betrayed  me,  so  that  I  fell ;  and  the  com- 
mandment was  the  weapon  with  which  it  slew  me.  "  The  result  is 
that  the  Law,  as  a  whole,  is  holy,  inasmuch  as  it  proceeds  from  God : 
and  each  single  commandment  has  the  like  character  of  holiness, 
justice,  and  beneficence.  "Am  I  then  to  say  that  a  thing  so 
excellent  in  itself  to  me  proved  fatal  ?  Not  for  a  moment.  It  was 
rather  the  demon  Sin  which  wrought  the  mischief.  And  the  reason 
why  it  was  permitted  to  do  so  was  that  it  might  be  shown  in 
its  true  colours,  convicted  of  being  the  pernicious  thing  that  it  is, 
by  the  fact  that  it  made  use  of  a  good  instrument,  Law,  to 
work  out  upon  me  the  doom  of  death.  For  this  reason  Sin  was 
permitted  to  have  its  way,  in  order  that  through  its  perverted 
use  of  the  Divine  commandment  it  might  be  seen  in  all  its  utter 
hideoosness. 

**  The  blame  cannot  attach  to  the  Law.  For  we  all  know  that 
the  Law  has  its  origin  from  the  Spirit  of  God  and  derives  its 
character  from  that  Spirit,  while  I,  poor  mortal,  am  made  of  frail 
human  flesh  and  blood,  sold  like  any  slave  in  the  market  into  the 
servitude  of  Sin.  "  It  is  not  the  Law,  and  not  my  own  deliberate 
■elf,  which  is  the  cause  of  the  evil ;  because  my  actions  are  exe- 
cuted blindly  with  no  proper  concurrence  of  the  wilL   I  purpose  one 

M 


17*  EPISTLE   TO  THE  ROMANS  [VH.  7-16 

way,  I  act  another.  I  hate  a  thing,  but  do  it.  *•  And  by  this  very 
fact  that  I  hate  the  thing  that  I  do,  my  conscience  bears  testimonj 
to  the  Law,  and  recognizes  its  excellence.  '^  So  that  the  state  of  the 
case  is  this.  It  is  not  I,  my  true  self,  who  put  into  act  what  is 
repugnant  to  me,  but  Sin  which  has  possession  of  me.  "  For  I  am 
aware  that  in  me  as  I  appear  to  the  outer  world — in  this  '  body 
that  does  me  grievous  wrong,'  there  dwells  (in  any  permanent  and 
predominating  shape)  nothing  that  is  good.  The  will  indeed  to  do 
good  is  mine,  and  I  can  command  it ;  but  the  performance  I  cannot 
command.  "  For  the  actual  thing  that  I  do  is  not  the  good  that 
I  wish  to  do ;  but  my  moral  agency  appears  in  the  evil  that  I  wish 
to  avoid.  *•  But  if  I  thus  do  what  I  do  not  wish  to  do,  then  the 
active  force  in  me,  the  agent  that  carries  out  the  act,  is  not  my  true 
self  (which  is  rather  seen  in  the  wish  to  do  right),  but  the  tyrant 
Sin  which  holds  possession  of  me.  '^I  find  therefore  this  law — 
if  so  it  may  be  called — this  stern  necessity  laid  upon  me  from 
without,  that  much  as  I  wish  to  do  what  is  good,  the  evil  lies  at  my 
door.  "  For  I  am  a  divided  being.  In  my  innermost  self,  the 
thinking  and  reasoning  part  of  me,  I  respond  joyfully  to  the  Law 
of  God.  **  But  then  I  see  a  different  Law  dominating  this  bodily 
organism  of  mine,  and  making  me  do  its  behests.  This  other  Law 
takes  the  field  in  arms  against  the  Law  of  Reason  and  Conscience, 
and  drags  me  away  captive  in  the  fetters  of  Sin,  the  Power  which 
has  such  a  fatal  grip  upon  my  body.  •*  Unhappy  man  that  I  am— 
torn  with  a  conflict  from  which  there  seems  to  be  no  issue !  This 
body  from  which  proceed  so  many  sinful  impulses ;  this  body  which 
makes  itself  the  instrument  of  so  many  acts  of  sin ;  this  body 
which  is  thus  dragging  me  down  to  death. — How  shall  I  ever  get 
free  from  it?  What  Deliverer  will  come  and  rescue  me  from  its 
oppression  ? 

•"  A  Deliverer  has  come.  And  I  can  only  thank  God,  approach- 
ing His  Presence  in  humble  gratitude,  through  Him  to  whom  the 
deliverance  is  due — Jesus  Messiah,  our  Lord. 

Vithout  His  intervention — so  long  as  I  am  left  to  my  own 
unaided  self — the  state  that  I  have  been  describing  may  be  brieflv 
summarized.  In  this  twofold  capacity  of  mine  I  serve  two  masters: 
with  my  conscience  I  serve  the  Law  of  God;  with  my  bodily 
•rganism  the  Law  of  Sin. 


Vn.  7,  8.]  LAW  AND  SIM  1 79 

7.  So  far  Sin  and  Law  have  been  seen  in  «uch  close  connexion 
that  it  becomes  necessary  to  define  more  exactly  the  relation 
between  them.  In  discussing  this  the  Apostle  is  led  to  consider 
the  action  of  both  upon  the  character  and  the  struggle  to  which 
they  give  rise  in  the  soul. 

It  is  evident  that  Marcion  h«d  thit  section,  ai  Tertnllian  tumi  against  him 
St.  Paul's  refusal  to  listen  to  any  attack  npon  the  Law,  which  Marcion 
ascribed  to  the  Demiurge :  Abominatur  apostolus  criminationtm  legis  .  .  . 
Quid  deo  imfutas  legis  quod  legi  tins  apostolus  imputart  non  audit  t  Atquin 
it  accumulat :  Lex  sancta,  et  praeceptum  eius  iustum  et  bonnin.  Si  taJiier 
V4H4ratur  Ugtm  trtatoris,  qutmtdo  ipsutn  destruat  ntstU. 

i  cifios  dfjiapTio.  It  had  just  been  shown  (ver.  5)  that  Sin  makti 
use  ^the  Law  to  effect  the  destruction  of  the  sinner.  Does  it 
follow  that  Sin  is  to  be  identified  with  the  Law  ?  Do  the  two  so 
overlap  each  other  that  the  Law  itself  comes  under  the  description 
of  Sin  ?  St.  Paul,  like  every  pious  Jew,  repels  this  conclusion  with 
horror. 

dXXd  contradicts  emphatically  the  notion  that  the  Law  is  Sin. 
On  the  contrary  the  Law  first  told  me  what  Sin  was. 

ofiK  h(Yw.  It  is  not  quite  certain  whether  this  is  to  be  taken 
hypothetically  (for  oIk  hv  tyvav,  Sv  omitted  to  give  a  greater  sense 
of  actuality,  Kuhner,  Gr.  Gramm.  ii.  176  f.)  or  whether  it  is  simply 
temporal.  Lips.  Oltr.  and  others  adopt  the  hypothetical  sense 
both  here  and  with  ovk  fibdv  below.  Gif.  Va.  make  both  ovk 
?yv«tv  and  OVK  pSftf  plain  statement  of  fact.  Mey.-W.  Go.  take 
OVK  ryvoiv  temporally,  ovk  ^btw  hypothetically.  As  the  context  is 
a  Bort  of  historical  retrospect  the  simple  statement  seems  most  in 
place. 

rfjv  Tf  ifdp  <mev|i(av.  re  ^^  is  best  explained  as  -  '  for  also,'  *  for  indeed ' 
(Gif.  Win.  §  liii.  p.  561  E.  T. ;  otherwise  Va.).  The  general  propoBiUon  is 
proved  by  a  concrete  example. 

lyvwv  .  .  .  iq6€iv  retain  their  proper  meanings:  ifvir,  'I  learnt,'  implies 
more  intimate  experimental  acquaintance;  <fb*iy  is  simple  knowledge  that 
there  was  such  a  thing  as  lost. 

firiOufii^acis.  The  Greek  word  has  a  wider  sense  than  our 
'  covet ' ;    it  includes  every  kind  of  ilhcit  desire. 

8.  d<()opfi.T)K  XoPouoro  :  '  getting  a  start,'  finding  a  point  dappui,  or, 
as  we  should  say,  '  something  to  take  hold  of.'  In  a  military 
sense  d^opurj  ss  '  a  base  of  operations '  (Thuc.  i,  90.  a,  &c.).  In 
a  literary  sense  acpopixriv  X«^«i»  =  '  to  take  a  hint,'  '  adopt  a  sug- 
gestion ' ;  cf.  Eus,  £p.  ad  Carpianum  en  roi  noyf/fiaTos  tov  irpoaprj- 
fiivov  dp8p6s  €ikri<pa>s  dcpopftds.  And  SO  here  in  a  moral  sense  :  Sin 
exists,  but  apart  from  Law  it  has  nothing  to  work  upon,  no  means 
of  producing  guilt.     Law  gives  it  just  the  opportunity  it  wants. 

\  dfuipria:  see  p.  145,  sup. 

t(4  T%  4inroX^f.     The  prep.  Bti  and  the  position  of  the  woid 


l8o  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VII.  8-U 

show  that  it  is  better  taken  with  Kontpyaaaro  than  with  a^>op^ 
\a$.  fiToXf  is  the  single  commandment ;  v6ftos  the  code  as  a 
whole. 

X»pis  y&p  .  . .  rtRpd.  A  standing  thought  which  we  have  had 
before,  iv.  15;  v.  13:  cf.  iii.  20. 

9.  il(av  {etv  B ;  ((mv  1 7).  St.  Paul  uses  a  vivid  figurative 
expression,  not  of  course  with  the  full  richness  of  meaning  which 
he  sometimes  gives  to  it  (i.  17;  viii.  13,  &c.).  He  is  describing 
the  state  prior  to  Law  primarily  in  himself  as  a  child  before  the 
consciousness  of  law  has  taken  hold  upon  him  ;  but  he  uses  this 
experience  as  typical  of  that  both  of  individuals  and  nations  before 
they  are  restrained  by  express  command.  The  '  natural  man 
flourishes ;  he  does  freely  and  without  hesitation  all  that  he  has 
a  mind  to  do;  he  puts  forth  all  his  vitality,  unembarrassed  by 
the  checks  and  thwartings  of  conscience.  It  is  the  kind  of  life 
which  is  seen  at  its  best  in  some  of  the  productions  of  Greek  art. 
Greek  life  had  no  doubt  its  deeper  and  more  serious  side ;  but 
this  comes  out  more  in  its  poetry  and  philosophy  :  the  frieze  of 
the  Parthenon  is  the  consummate  expression  of  a  life  that  does 
not  look  beyond  the  morrow  and  has  no  inward  perplexities  to 
trouble  its  enjoyment  of  to-day.     See  the  general  discussion  below. 

&yiit](jtv :  '  sprang  into  life '  (T.  K.  Abbott).  Sin  at  first  is 
there,  but  dormant ;  not  until  it  has  the  help  of  the  Law  does  it 
become  an  active  power  of  mischief. 

11.  ii:i\TTiTf\<Ti  fic.  The  language  is  suggested  by  the  descrip- 
tion of  the  Fall  (Gen.  iii.  1 3  LXX ;  cf.  2  Cor.  xi.  3 ;  i  Tim.  ii 
14).  Sin  here  takes  the  place  of  the  Tempter  there.  In  both 
cases  the  'commandment' — acknow'edged  only  to  be  broken — 
is  the  instrument  which  is  made  use  of  to  bring  about  the  disas- 
trous and  fatal  end. 

12.  A  (icK  v<5|xos.    The  niv  expects  a  following  b*.     St.  Paul  had 

probably    intended    to    write    f)    8e    ifiaprla    KarrjpycuTaTO    iv    ifioi    t6v 

Bavarov,  OX  Something  of  the  kind ;  but  he  digresses  to  explain  how 
a  good  Law  can  have  evil  consequences,  and  so  he  fails  to  com- 
plete the  sentence  on  the  same  plan  on  which  he  had  begun  it.  On 
St  Paul's  view  of  the  nature  and  functions  of  the  Law  see  below. 

It  is  hardly  safe  to  argue  with  Zahn  (Gettk.  </.  A*.  IL  517)  from  the  lan- 
guage of  Tertullian  (given  above  on  ver.  7)  that  that  writer  had  before  him 
a  corrnpt  Marcionitic  text — not,  2^hn  thinks,  actually  due  to  Marcion,  but 
corrupted  since  his  time — 1)  iyroX^  airrov  SiKoia  for  H  ivr.  iyia  Kal  Siitaia. 
It  is  more  probable  that  Tert.  is  reproducing  his  text  rather  freely :  in  Z?* 
Pudu.  6  he  leaves  out  itaL  liitaxa,  Ux  quidem  sancta  at  tt  praecepti^m 
tcmctMm  et  optimum  (the  use  of  superlative  for  positive  is  fairly  common  in 
Latin  versions  and  writers). 

18.  Why  was  this  strange  perversion  of  so  excellent  a  thing  as 
the  Law  permitted  ?     This  very  perversion  served  to  aggravate  the 


VIL  18-16.]  LAW  AND  SIM  l8l 

horror  of  Sin :  not  content  with  the  evil  which  it  is  in  itself  it 
must  needs  turn  to  evil  that  which  was  at  once  Divine  in  its  origin 
and  beneficent  in  its  purpose.  To  say  this  was  to  pronounce  its 
condemnation :  it  was  like  giving  it  full  scope,  so  that  the  whole 
world  might  see  {itavg)  of  what  extremities  {Koff  vv«p^ok^v)  Sin 
was  capable. 

14.  The  section  which  follows  explains  more  fully  by  a  psycho- 
logical analysis  how  it  is  that  the  Law  is  broken  and  that  Sin 
works  such  havoc.  There  is  a  germ  of  good  in  human  nature, 
a  genuine  desire  to  do  what  is  right,  but  this  is  overborne  by  the 
force  of  temptation  acting  through  the  bodily  appetites  and 
passions. 

irreuftaTtR^t.  The  Law  is  'spiritual,'  as  the  Manna  and  the 
Water  from  the  Rock  were  '  spiritual '  (i  Cor.  x.  3,  4)  in  the  sense 
of  being  '  Spirit-caused '  or  '  Spirit-given,'  but  with  the  further 
connotation  that  the  character  of  the  Law  is  such  as  corresponds 
to  its  origin. 

adpKivoi  {aapKiKos  t^  L  P  a/.)  denotes  simply  the  material  of 
which  human  nature  is  composed,  '  made  of  flesh  and  blood ' 
(i  Cor.  iii.  I ;  2  Cor.  iii.  3),  and  as  such  exposed  to  all  the  tempta- 
tions which  act  through  the  body. 

,  There  has  been  considerable  controTtrsy  as  to  the  bearing  of  the  antithesis 
in  St  Paul  between  the  a&p^  and  irycv/w.  It  has  been  maintained  that  this 
antithesis  amounts  to  dualism,  that  St.  Paul  regards  the  aap^  as  inherently 
eril  and  the  cause  of  evil,  and  that  this  dualistic  conception  is  Greek  or 
Hellenistic  and  not  Jewish  in  its  origin.  So,  but  with  differences  among 
themselves,  Holsten  (1855,  1868),  Rich.  Schmidt  (1870),  Liidemann  (187a), 
and  to  some  extent  Pfleiderer  (1S73).  [In  the  second  edition  of  his  PauUn- 
iimus  (1890),  Pfleiderer  refers  so  much  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  on  this  head 
as  seems  to  go  beyond  the  O.  T.  not  to  Hellenism,  but  to  the  later  Jewish 
doctrine  of  the  Fall,  much  as  it  has  been  expounded  above,  p.  136  ff.  In  this 
tte  need  not  greatly  differ  from  him.]  The  most  elaborate  reply  was  that  of 
H.  H.  Wendt,  Die  Btgriffe  Fltisch  und  Giist  (Gotha,  1878),  which  was 
made  the  basis  of  an  excellent  treatise  in  English  by  Dr.  W.  P.  Dickson, 
St.  PauFt  Uu  of  the  T$rms  Flesh  and  Spirit,  Glasgow,  1883.  Reference 
may  also  be  made  to  the  well-considered  statement  of  Dr.  Gifford  (Romans, 

f'P-  48-5')'  The  controversy  may  now  be  regarded  as  practically  closed, 
ts  result  is  summed  up  by  Lipsius  in  these  decisive  words :  '  The  Pauline 
anthropology  rests  entirely  on  an  Old  TesUment  base ;  the  elements  in  it 
which  are  supposed  to  be  derived  from  Hellenistic  dualism  must  simply  be 
denied  {sind  einfack  %u  bestrtiten).'  The  pointa  peculiar  to  St  Paul, 
according  to  Lipsius,  are  the  sharper  contrast  between  the  Divine  mtvpa  and 
the  human  ^tv^V,  and  the  reading  of  a  more  ethical  sense  into  aap^,  which 
was  originally  physical,  so  that  in  Gal.  v.  19  ff.,  Rom.  viii.  4  ft  the  aap^ 
becomes  a  principle  directly  at  war  with  the  mtvpa.  In  the  present  passage 
(Rom.  vii.  14-25)  the  opposing  principle  is  dpapria,  and  the  adp£  is  only  the 
material  naedium  (Substrat)  of  sensual  impulses  and  desires.  We  may  add 
that  this  is  St  Paul's  essential  view,  of  which  all  else  is  but  the  variant 
expression. 

10.  KaT«pY<tfo|Mu  '^ ptrficio,p*rp$tfo, '  to  carry  into  effect,'  *  put  into  execn* 
dob ' :  mpAaom  «  tfgf,  to  act  as  a  moral  and  responsible  being :  voiar  ^/atic^ 


ite  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [VH.  IB-VL 

to  prodnoc  •  certain  result  without  reference  to  its  moral  character,  and 
simply  as  it  might  be  produced  by  inanimate  mechanism  (see  also  the  notet 
on  ch.  i.  32  :  ii.  9).  Of  coune  the  specific  sense  may  not  be  always  marked 
by  the  context,  but  here  it  is  well  borne  out  throughout.  For  a  fuller 
account  of  the  Hisdnction  see  Schmidt,  Lot.  m.  Gr.  Sytunymik.  p.  394  ff. 

ou  ywituKui  appears  to  describe  the  harmonious  and  conscious  working  of 
will  and  motive,  the  former  deliberately  accepting  and  carrying  out  the 
promptings  of  the  latter.  The  man  acts,  so  to  speak,  blindly :  he  is  not 
a  fully  conscious  agent :  a  force  which  he  cannot  resist  takes  the  decision  oat 
of  his  hands. 

h  6(\ci>.  The  exact  distinction  between  Oi\w  and  ^tiXonni  has  been  mndi 
disputed,  and  is  difficult  to  mark.  On  the  whole  it  seems  that,  especially  in 
N.  T.  usage,  ^ovXoixcu  lays  the  greater  stress  on  the  idea  of  purpose,  delibera- 
tion, 9i\a}  on  the  more  emotional  aspect  of  will :  in  this  context  it  ii 
eridently  something  short  of  the  fmal  act  of  volition,  and  practically  —  '  wish,' 
'  desire.'    See  especially  the  fall  and  excellent  note  in  Grm.-Thay. 

17.  rwrl  %i:  '  as  it  is/  '  as  the  case  really  lies ' ;  the  contrast  it 

logical,  not  temporal. 

^  oiKoGoa  iv  i^oX  dftapnou  [Read  IviKovam  with  M  B,  Method. 
(ap.  Phot,  cod.,  non  auiem  ap.  Epiph.)]  This  indwelling  Sin  cor- 
responds to  the  indwelling  Spirit  of  the  next  chapter  :  a  further 
proof  that  the  Power  which  exerts  so  baneful  an  influence  is 
not  merely  an  attribute  of  the  man  himself  but  has  an  objectiYe 
existence. 

18.  iv  l^oi,  toot'  ?<mr,  «.t.X.  The  part  of  the  man  in  which 
Sin  thus  establishes  itself  is  not  his  higher  self,  his  conscience,  but 
his  lower  self,  the  '  flesh,'  which,  if  not  itself  evil,  is  too  easily  made 
the  instrument  of  evil. 

irapdKciTai  (104 :  '  lies  to  my  hand,'  *  within  my  reach.' 

•b  KABC  47  67**a/.,  Edd.:  oix '^-^V**  D E F G K L P  *e. 
20.  b  oi  ei\<v  BCDEFG  «/.,  WH.  &V.:  I  •«  iikm  iym  MAKLP 
Bk.,  Tisch.  WH.  marf. 

21.  cApioKO)  apa  T^r  r^fior :  '  I  find  then  this  rule,'  '  this  con- 
straining principle,'  hardly  *  this  constantly  recurring  experience,' 
which  would  be  too  modern.  The  t^fiot  here  mentioned  is  akin 
to  the  !t*pov  v6fjLov  of  ver.  t-^.  It  is  not  merely  the  obserred  fact 
that  the  will  to  do  good  is  forestalled  by  evil,  but  the  coercion  of 
the  will  that  is  thus  exercised.  Lips,  seems  to  be  nearest  to  the 
mark,  das  Geselz  d.  h.  die  objectiv  mir  auferkgU  Notkwendigkdt, 

Many  commentators,  from  Chrysostora  onwards,  have  tried  to 
make  row  v6\n>v  =  the  Mosaic  Law :  but  either  (i)  they  read  into  the 
passage  more  than  the  context  will  allow;  or  (ii)  they  give  to  the 
sentence  a  construction  which  ii  hng^istically  intolerable.  The 
best  attempt  in  this  direction  is  prob.  that  of  Va.  who  translates, 
*  I  find  then  with  regard  to  the  Law,  that  to  me  who  would  fain 
ao  that  which  is  good,  to  me  (I  say)  that  which  is  evil  is  present' 
He  supposes  a  double  break  in  the  construction  :  (i)  rhv  y6fior 
pot  as  if  the  sentence  had  been  intended  to  run  '  I  find  then  the 


VU.  21-24.]  LAW  AND   SIN  l8? 

Law— when  I  wish  to  do  good— powerless  to  help  me ' ;  and  (i. 
«>t  repeated  for  the  sake  of  clearness.  It  is  apparently  in 
a  similar  sense  that  Dr.  T.  K.  Abbott  proposes  as  an  alternative 
rendering  (the  first  being  as  above),  'With  respect  to  the  law, 
I  find,'  &c.  But  the  anacoluthon  after  t6v  v6fiov  seems  too  great 
even  for  dictation  to  an  amanuensis.  Other  expedients  like  those 
of  Mey.  (not  Mey.-W.)  Fri.  Ew.  are  still  more  impossible.  See 
esp.  Gif.  Additional  Note,  p.  145. 

22.  auin/jSojioi  ry  fiJfif  too  e€oO :  what  it  approves,  I  gladly  and 
cordially  approve, 

KOTd  r6y  law  ayipntKOK  St.  Paul,  as  we  have  seen  (on  vi.  6), 
makes  great  use  of  this  phrase  Hvdpconos,  which  goes  back  as  far  as 
Plato.  Now  he  contrasts  the  'old'  with  the  'new  man'  (or,  as 
we  should  say,  the  'old'  with  the  'new  self)  ;  now  he  contrasts 
the  'outer  man,'  or  the  body  (6  f$<o  av6pwnos  2  Cor.  iv.  16),  with  the 
'inner  man,'  the  conscience  or  reason  (2  Cor.  iv.  16;  Eph.  iii.  16). 

28.  Irepov  I'djior:  'a  different  law'  (for  the  distinction  between 
frtpos, '  different,'  and  axXof, «  another,'  '  a  second,'  see  the  commen- 
tators on  Gal.  i.  6,  7). 

There  are  two  Imperatives  {v6fi.M)  within  the  man :  one,  that  of 
conscience;  the  other,  that  proceeding  from  the  action  of  Sin 
upon  the  body.  One  of  these  Imperatives  is  the  moral  law,  'Thou 
Shalt'  and  'Thou  shalt  not';  the  other  is  the  violent  impulse  of 
passion. 

T«  v6n*i  TOO  ro<Js  fjio«.  For  »«{;»  see  on  i.  a8 :  it  is  the  rarional 
pan  of  conscience,  the  faculty  which  decides  between  right  and 
wrong :  strictly  speaking  it  belongs  to  the  region  of  morals  rather 
than  to  that  of  intercourse  with  God,  or  religion  ;  but  it  may  be 
associated  with   and   brought  under  the  influence  of  the  nvtLfia 

(Eph.  iv.  23  dfavfovadai  r^  rrvtvfiari  tov  vo6s  :   cf.  Rom.  xii.  2),  jUSt  aS 

on  the  other  hand  it  may  be  corrupted  by  the  flesh  (Rom.  i,'  a8). 

24.  raXaiTTupos  lyu  avQpwrtQ%.  A  heart-rending  cry,  from  the 
depths  of  despair.  It  is  difficult  to  think  of  this  as  exactly  St.  Paul's 
own  experience :  as  a  Christian  he  seems  above  it,  as  a  Pharisee 
below  it — self-satisfaction  was  too  ingrained  in  the  Pharisaic  temper, 
the  performance  of  Pharisaic  righteousness  was  too  well  within  the 
compass  of  an  average  will.  But  St.  Paul  was  not  an  ordinary 
Pharisee.  He  dealt  too  honestly  with  himself,  so  that  sooner  or 
later  the  self-satisfaction  natural  to  the  Pharisee  must  give  way: 
and  his  experience  as  a  Christian  would  throw  back  a  lurid  light  on 
those  old  days  '  of  which  he  was  now  ashamed.'  So  that,  what  with 
his  knowledge  of  himself,  and  what  with  his  sympathetic  penetration 
into  the  hearts  of  others,  he  had  doubtless  materials  enough  for  the 
picture  which  he  has  drawn  here  with  such  extraordina'iy  power 
He  has  sat  for  his  own  likeness ;  but  there  are  ideal  traits  in  th« 
picture  as  well 


1 84  EPISTLE  TO   THE   ROMANS        [VII.  M,  >& 

!■  To8  o4ffcaros  toG  iwdrwi  toJtou.  In  construction  rovrov  might 
go  with  o-M/iarof  ('  from  this  body  of  death ') :  but  it  is  far  better  to 
take  it  in  the  more  natural  connexion  with  6avarov ;  '  the  body  of 
this  death '  which  already  has  me  in  its  clutches.  Sin  and  death 
are  inseparable  :  as  the  body  involves  me  in  sin  it  also  involves  me 
in  mortality ;  physical  death  to  be  followed  by  eternal,  the  death  of 
the  body  by  the  death  of  the  soul. 

25.  4po  ooK  II.T.X-  A  terse  compressed  summary  of  the  previous 
paragraph,  w.  7-84,  describing  in  two  strokes  the  state  of  things 
prior  to  the  intervention  of  Christ.  The  expression  is  that  which 
comes  from  deep  feeling.  The  particular  phrases  hardly  seem  to 
need  further  explanation. 

«vxapi<rr&  t^  6<^.     The  tree  reading  u  probably  x^  ^¥  ®*^-     The 

svidence  itands  thus. 
X^P**  fV  •«9'  B,  Sah.,  Orig.  semel  Hieron.  stitul. 
X^pi*  8i  rq>  @e^  N» C*  (dt  C*  fum  liquet)  minust.  sUf.,  Boh.  Arm.,  Cyr- 

Alex.  Jo.-Damasc 
1)  xip't  rov  e<ov  D  £  38,  de  Vulg.,  Orig.-lat.  Ut  Hieron.  ttmtl  Ambntr. 
^  X^pit  ToC  Kvplov  FG,  f  g,  cf.  Iren.-lat. 

•iX"P'<^'''5    T^    e*^    N*  A  K  L  P    &c.,   Syrr.    Goth.,    Orig,    its    Chryt. 
Theodrt.  al.     [tvxaptaTu  0ey  Method,  ap.  Epiph.  cttd.,  sed  x''P'^  '"V 
0(f>  vel  x<^/>"  S^  Tf)  ^f^v  £piphu  tdd.  pr. ;  mid.  Bonwetsch,  Methodius 
von  Olympus,  i.  204.] 
It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  reading  of  B  wonld  explain  all  the  rest     The 
reading  of  the  mass  of  MSS.  wonld  be  derived  from  it  (not  at  once  bot  by 
successive  steps)  by  the  doubling  of  two  pairs  of  letten, 
TOYTOY[€Y]x*P'c[T<o]Ta)eea). 
The  descent  of  the  other  readings  may  be  best  represented  by  •  table. 

X^piC  T(i>  6€<{> 


cfxApiCTce  T^  6e^ 


|ipK  Ac  T^  6c<^  N  x^pic  TOY  6eoY  (6?) 

M  x*P'C  TOY  Kypioy  (Ky) 

The  other  possibility  would  be  that  (vxafxtrrA  r^  •cf*  had  got  reduced  t« 
X(ip<»  f^  ^*v  ^y  successive  dropping  of  letters.  But  this  must  have  taken 
place  very  early.    It  is  also  conceivable  that  x^'  '^  pnceded  x^'  only. 


The  Inward  Conflict. 

Two  subjects  for  discussion  are  raised,  or  are  commonly  treated 
as  if  they  were  raised,  by  this  section,  (i)  Is  the  experience 
described  that  of  the  regenerate  or  unregenerate  man?  (a)  Is  it, 
or  is  it  not,  the  experience  of  St.  Paul  himself? 

I  (a).  Origen  and  the  mass  of  Greek  Fathers  held  that  the 
passage  refers  to  the  unregenerate  man.  (i)  Appeal  is  made  to 
such  expressions  as  irm-poficKOf  imh  ri\w  ifjMprlaf  ver.  14,  KOTfpyaCcfuu 


VII.  7-26.1  LAW  AND  SIN  1 85 

[rA  KaK6»]  w.  19,  20,  ToXaijrwpof  fyi>  a^^pawror  ver.  24.  It  is  argued 
that  language  like  this  is  nowhere  found  of  the  regenerate  state, 
(ii)  When  other  expressions  are  adduced  which  seem  to  make  for 
the  opposite  conclusion,  it  is  urged  that  parallels  to  them  may  be 
quoted  from  Pagan  literature,  <.g.  the  video  meliora  of  Ovid  and 
many  other  like  sayings  in  Euripides,  Xenophon,  Seneca,  Epictetua 
(see  Dr.  T.  K.  Abbott  on  ver.  15  of  this  chapter),  (iii)  The  use  of 
the  present  tense  is  explained  as  dramatic.  The  Apostle  throws 
himself  back  into  the  time  which  he  is  describing. 

(3)  Another  group  of  writers,  Methodius  (ob.  310  a.d.),  Augustine 
and  the  Latin  Fathers  generally,  the  Reformers  especially  on  the 
Calvinistic  side,  refer  the  passage  rather  to  the  regenerate,  (i)  An 
opposite  set  of  expressions  is  quoted,  /xto-i  [ri  KaK6v'\  ver.  15,  6k\,i> 
noitly  t6  «aXo'»'  ver.  21,  irvvi^bofxai  ra  vontf  ver.  22.  It  is  Said  that' these 
are  inconsistent  with  the  anriWoTprntuvoi  koL  ix6poi  of  Col.  i.  21  and 
with  descriptions  like  that  of  Rom.  viii.  7,  8.  (ii)  Stress  is  laid  on 
the  present  tenses :  and  in  proof  that  these  imply  a  present  experi- 
ence, reference  is  made  to  passages  like  i  Cor.  ix.  27  vn-amdf*  ^mv 
TO  ff&fM  Koi  8ov\aya,yS>.  That  even  the  regenerate  may  have  this 
mixed  experience  is  thought  to  be  proved,  e.g.  by  Gal.  vi.  17. 

Clearly  there  is  a  double  strain  of  language.  The  state  of  things 
described  is  certainly  a  conflict  in  which  opposite  forces  are  strueslina 
for  the  mastery.  ^^     ^ 

Whether  such  a  state  belongs  to  the  regenerate  or  the  unre- 
generate  man  seems  to  push  us  back  upon  the  further  question, 
What  we  mean  by '  regenerate.'  The  word  is  used  in  a  higher  and 
a  lower  sense.  In  the  lower  sense  it  is  applied  to  all  baptized 
Chnstians.  In  that  sense  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
experience  described  may  fairly  come  within  it. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  the  higher  stages  of  the  spiritual  life  seem 
to  be  really  excluded.  The  sigh  of  relief  in  ver.  25  marks  a  dividing 
hne  between  a  period  of  conflict  and  a  period  where  conflict  is 
practically  ended.  This  shows  that  the  present  tenses  are  in  any 
case  not  to  be  taken  too  literally.  Three  steps  appear  to  be 
distmguished,  (i)  the  life  of  unconscious  morality  (ver.  9),  happy, 
but  only  from  ignorance  and  thoughtlessness;  (ii)  then  the  sharp 
collision  between  law  and  the  sinful  appetites  waking  to  activity ; 
(iii)  the  end  which  is  at  last  put  to  the  stress  and  strain  of  this 
colhsion  by  the  intervention  of  Christ  and  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  of 
which  more  will  be  said  in  the  next  chapter.  The  state  there 
described  is  that  of  the  truly  and  fully  regenerate;  the  prolonged 
struggle  which  precedes  seems  to  be  more  rightly  defined  as  tn/er 
regenerandum  (Gif  after  Dean  Jackson). 

Or  perhaps  we  should  do  better  still  to  refuse  to  introduce  so 
technical  a  term  as  '  regeneration '  into  a  context  from  which  it  is 
wholly  absent.    Sl  Paul,  it  is  true,  regarded  Christianity  as  operating 


l86  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VII.  7-28. 

a  change  in  man.  But  here,  whether  the  moment  described  is 
before  or  after  the  embracing  of  Christianity,  in  any  case  abstraction 
is  made  of  all  that  is  Christian.  Law  and  the  soul  are  brought  face 
to  face  with  each  other,  and  there  is  nothing  between  them.  Not 
until  we  come  to  ver.  »5  is  there  a  single  expression  used  which 
belongs  to  Christianity.  And  the  use  cf  it  marks  that  the  conflict 
is  ended. 

(a)  As  to  the  further  question  whether  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of 
himself  or  of  '  some  other  man '  we  observe  that  the  crisis  which  is 
described  here  is  not  at  least  the  same  as  that  which  is  commonly 
known  as  his  *  Conversion.'  Here  the  crisis  is  moral ;  there  it  was 
in  the  first  instance  intellectual,  turning  upon  the  acceptance  of 
the  proposition  that  Jesus  was  truly  the  Messiah.  The  decisive 
point  in  the  conflict  may  be  indeed  the  appropriation  of  Christ 
through  His  Spirit,  but  it  is  at  least  not  an  intellectual  conviction, 
such  as  might  exist  along  with  a  severe  moral  struggle.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  whole  description  is  so  vivid  and  so  sincere,  so 
evidently  wrung  from  the  anguish  of  direct  personal  experience, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  think  of  it  as  purely  imaginary.  It  is  really 
not  so  much  imaginary  as  imaginative.  It  is  not  a  literal  photo- 
graph of  any  one  stage  in  the  Apostle's  career,  but  it  is  a  con. 
structive  picture  drawn  by  him  in  bold  lines  from  elements  sup- 
plied to  him  by  self-introspection.  We  may  well  believe  that  the 
regretful  reminiscence  of  bright  unconscious  innocence  goes  back 
to  the  days  of  his  own  childhood  before  he  had  begun  to  feel  the 
conviction  of  Sin.  The  incubus  of  the  Law  he  had  felt  most 
keenly  when  he  was  a  'Pharisee  of  the  Pharisees.'  Without 
putting  an  exact  date  to  the  struggle  which  follows  we  shall  prob- 
ably not  be  wrong  in  referring  the  main  features  of  it  especially  to 
the  period  before  his  Conversion.  It  was  then  that  the  powerless- 
ness  of  the  Law  to  do  anything  but  aggravate  sin  was  brought 
home  to  him.  And  all  his  experience,  at  whatever  date,  of  the 
struggle  of  the  natural  man  with  temptation  is  here  gathered 
together  and  concentrated  in  a  single  portraiture.  It  would 
obviously  be  a  mistake  to  apply  a  generalized  ex^ierience  like 
this  too  rigidly.  The  process  described  comes  to  different  men 
at  different  times  and  in  different  degrees;  to  one  early,  to  an- 
other later ;  in  one  man  it  would  lead  up  to  Christianity,  in 
another  it  might  follow  it;  in  one  it  would  be  quick  and  sudden, 
in  another  the  slow  growth  of  years.  We  cannot  lay  down  any 
rule.  In  any  case  it  is  the  mark  of  a  genuine  faith  to  be  able  to 
say  with  the  Apostle,  'Thanks  be  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.'  It  is  just  in  his  manner  to  sum  up  thus  in  a  sen- 
tence what  he  is  about  to  expand  into  a  chapter.  The  break 
occurs  at  a  very  suitable  place  :  ch.  viii  is  the  true  conclusion  t» 
ch.  vii 


VJI.  7-86.]  LAW  AND  SIM  i$j 

St.  Paul's  Vuw  of  the  Law, 

It  was  in  his  view  of  the  Mosaic  Law  that  St.  Paul  must  have 
Beemed  most  revolutionary  to  his  countrymen.  And  yet  it  would 
be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  he  ever  lost  that  reverence  for  the 
Law  as  a  Divine  institution  in  which  every  Jew  was  born  and  bred 
and  to  which  he  himself  was  still  more  completely  committed  by 
his  early  education  as  a  Pharisee  (Gal.  i.  14 ;  Phil.  iii.  5  f.).  This 
old  feeling  of  his  comes  out  in  emotional  passages  like  Rom.  ix.  4 
(cf.  iii.  a;  ii.  25,  &c.).  And  even  where,  as  in  the  section  before 
us,  he  is  bringing  out  most  forcibly  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  Law 
to  restrain  human  passion  the  Apostle  still  lays  down  expressly 
that  the  Law  itself  is  '  holy  and  righteous  and  good ' ;  and  a  little 
lower  down  (ver.  14)  he  gives  it  the  epithet  '  spiritual,'  which  is 
equivalent  to  ascribing  to  it  a  direct  Divine  origin. 

It  was  only  because  of  his  intense  sincerity  and  honesty  in 
feeing  facts  that  St  Paul  ever  brought  himself  to  give  up  his 
belief  in  the  sufficiency  of  the  Law ;  and  there  is  no  greater  proof 
of  his  power  and  penetration  of  mind  than  the  way  in  which, 
when  once  his  thoughts  were  turned  into  this  channel,  he  followed 
out  the  whole  subject  into  its  inmost  recesses.  We  can  hardly 
doubt  that  his  criticism  of  the  Law  as  a  principle  of  religion  dates 
back  to  a  time  before  his  definite  conversion  to  Christianity.  The 
process  described  in  this  chapter  clearly  belongs  to  a  period  when 
the  Law  of  Moses  was  the  one  authority  which  the  Apostle  re- 
cognized. It  represents  just  the  kind  of  difficulties  and  struggles 
which  would  be  endured  long  before  they  led  to  a  complete  shift- 
ing of  belief,  and  which  would  only  lead  to  it  then  because  a  new 
and  a  better  solution  had  been  found.  The  apparent  suddenness 
of  St.  Paul's  conversion  was  due  to  the  tenacity  with  which  he 
held  on  to  his  Jewish  faith  and  his  reluctance  to  yield  to  con- 
clusions which  were  merely  negative.  It  was  not  till  a  whole 
group  of  positive  convictions  grew  up  within  him  and  showed  their 
power  of  supplying  the  vacant  place  that  the  Apostle  withdrew  his 
allegiance,  and  when  he  had  done  so  came  by  degrees  to  see 
the  true  place  of  the  Law  in  the  Divine  economy. 

From  the  time  that  he  came  to  write  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
the  process  is  mapped  out  before  us  pretty  clearly. 

The  doubts  began,  as  we  have  seen,  in  psychological  experience. 
With  the  best  will  in  the  world  St.  Paul  had  found  that  really  tc 
keep  the  Law  was  a  matter  of  infinite  difficulty.  However  much 
it  drew  him  one  way  there  were  counter  influences  which  drew 
him  another.  And  these  counter  influences  proved  the  stronger 
of  the  two.  The  Law  itself  was  cold,  inert,  passive.  It  pointed 
severely  to  the  path  of  right  and  duty,  but  there  its  function    , 


\ 


1 88  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VII.  7-26. 

ended ;  it  gave  no  help  towards  the  performance  of  that  which  it 
required.  Nay,  by  a  certain  strange  perversity  in  human  nature, 
it  seemed  actually  to  provoke  to  disobedience.  The  very  fact 
that  a  thing  was  forbidden  seemed  to  make  its  attractions  all  the 
greater  (Rom.  vii.  8).  And  so  the  last  state  was  worse  than  the 
first  The  one  sentence  in  which  St.  Paul  sums  up  his  experience 
of  Law  is  diA  v6fiov  fwlyvma-it  afiaprlat  (Rom.  iii.  ao).  Its  effect 
therefore  was  only  to  increase  the  condemnation :  it  multiplied  sin 
(Rom.  V.  ao);  it  worked  wrath  (Rom.  iv.  15);  it  brought  man- 
kind under  a  curse  (Gal.  iii.  10). 

And  this  was  equally  true  of  the  individual  and  of  the  race  ;  the 
better  and  fuller  the  law  the  more  glaring  was  the  contrast  to  the 
practice  of  those  who  lived  under  it.  The  Jews  were  at  the  head 
of  all  mankind  in  their  privileges,  but  morally  they  were  not  much 
better  than  the  Gentiles.  In  the  course  of  his  travels  St.  Paul  was 
led  to  visit  a  number  of  the  scattered  colonies  of  Jews,  and  when 
he  compares  them  with  the  Gentiles  he  can  only  turn  upon  them 
a  biting  irony  (Rom.  ii.  17-29). 

The  truth  must  be  acknowledged ;  as  a  system,  Law  of  what- 
ever kind  had  failed.  The  breakdown  of  the  Jewish  Law  was 
most  complete  just  because  that  law  was  the  best.  It  stood  out 
in  history  as  a  monument,  revealing  the  right  and  condemning 
the  wrong,  heaping  up  the  pile  of  human  guilt,  and  nothing 
more.  On  a  large  scale  for  the  race,  as  on  a  small  scale  for  the 
individual,  the  same  verdict  held,  dia  v6fiov  imyvuxris  dfiafn-iat. 

Clearly  the  fault  of  all  this  was  not  with  the  Law.  The  fault 
lay  in  the  miserable  weakness  of  human  nature  (Rom.  viii.  3). 
The  Law,  as  a  code  of  commandments,  did  all  that  it  was  intended 
to  do.  But  it  needed  to  be  supplemented.  And  it  was  just  this 
supplementing  which  Christianity  brought,  and  by  bringing  it  set 
the  Law  in  its  true  light  and  in  its  right  place  in  the  evolution  of 
the  Divine  plan.  St.  Paul  sees  spread  before  him  the  whole  ex- 
panse of  history.  The  dividing  line  across  it  is  the  Coming  of 
the  Messiah.  All  previous  to  that  is  a  period  of  Law — first  of 
imperfect  law,  such  law  as  was  supplied  by  natural  religion  and 
conscience ;  and  then  of  relatively  perfect  law,  the  law  given  by 
God  from  Sinai.  It  was  not  to  be  supposed  that  this  gift  of  law 
increased  the  sum  of  human  happiness.  Rather  the  contrary. 
In  the  infancy  of  the  world,  as  in  the  infancy  of  the  individual, 
there  was  a  blithe  unconsciousness  of  right  and  wrong ;  impulse 
was  followed  wherever  it  led  ;  the  primrose  path  of  enjoyment 
had  no  dark  shadow  cast  over  it.  Law  was  this  dark  shadow. 
In  proportion  as  it  became  stricter,  it  deepened  the  gloom.  II 
law  had  been  kept,  or  where  law  was  kept,  it  brought  with  it 
a  new  kind  of  happiness;  but  to  a  serious  spirit  like  St.  Paal'i 
it  seemed  as  if  the  law  was    never  kept— never   satisfactorilr 


VTII.  1-4.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  I«9 

kept — at  all  There  was  a  Rabbinical  commonplace,  a  stern 
rule  of  self-judgement,  which  waa  fatal  to  peace  of  mind :  '  Who- 
soever shall  keep  the  whole  law  and  yet  stumble  in  one  point, 
he  is  become  guilty  of  all'  (Jas.  ii.  lo;  cf  Gal.  iii.  i6;  Rom. 
X.  5).  Any  true  happiness  therefore,  any  true  relief,  must  be 
sought  elsewhere.  And  it  was  thia  happiness  and  refief  whicii 
St.  Paul  sought  and  found  in  Christ.  The  last  verse  of  ch.  vii 
marks  the  point  at  which  the  great  burden,  which  lay  upon  the 
conscience  rolls  away;  and  the  next  chapter  begins  with  an 
uplifting  of  the  heart  in  recovered  peace  ahd  serenity ;  '  There  is 
therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus.' 

Taken  thus  in  connexion  with  that  new  order  of  things  into 
which  it  was  to  pass  and  empty  itself,  the  old  order  of  Law  had  at 
last  its  difficulties  cleared  away.  It  remained  as  a  stage  of 
salutary  and  necessary  discipline.  All  God's  ways  are  not  bright 
upon  the  surface.  But  the  very  clouds  which  He  draws  over  the 
heavens  will  break  in  blessings;  and  break  just  at  that  moment 
when  their  darkness  is  felt  to  be  most  oppressive.  St.  Paul  him- 
self saw  the  gloomy  period  of  law  through  to  its  end  {rikot  yap 
96fiov   Xpiarrbs  fit   iucaioarvvriv   navri   rm  trttrrevovTi   Rom.   X.   4) ;    and 

his  own  pages  reflect,  better  than  any  other,  the  new  hopes  and 
energies  by  which  it  was  succeeded. 


UFE  IN  TEH  SPIRIT. 
THE  FBUITS  OP  THE  INCABNATIOW. 

VIII.  1-4.  Tke  result  of  Christ's  interposition  is  to 
dethrone  Sin  from  its  tyranny  in  the  human  heart,  and  to 
instal  in  its  stead  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  Thus  what  the 
Law  of  Moses  tried  to  do  but  failed,  the  Incarnation  has 
accomplished. 

*This  being  so,  no  verdict  of  'Guilty'  goes  forth  any  longer 
against  the  Christian.  He  lives  in  closest  union  with  Christ. 
"  The  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  medium  of  that  union,  with  all  its  life- 
giving  energies,  enters  and  issues  its  laws  from  his  heart,  dis- 
possessing the  old  usurper  Sin,  putting  an  end  to  its  authority  and 
to  the  fatal  results  which  it  brought  with  it  •  For  where  the  old 
system  failed,  the  new  system  has  succeeded.  The  Law  of  Moses 
could  not  get  rid  of  Sin.  The  weak  place  in  its  action  was  that 
our  poor  human  nature  was  constantly  tempted  and  fell.  But  now 
God  Himself  has  interposed  by  sending  the  Son  of  His  love  to 


I90  EPISTLE   TO   THE   ROMANS  [VIII.  1,  S, 

take  upon  Him  that  same  human  nature  with  aU  its  attributes 
except  sin :  in  that  nature  He  died  to  free  us  from  sin :  and  thife 
Death  of  His  carried  with  it  a  verdict  of  condemnation  against  Sin 
and  of  acquittal  for  its  victims ;  *  so  that  from  henceforth  what  the 
Law  lays  down  as  right  might  be  fulfilled  by  us  who  regulate  our 
lives  not  according  to  the  appetites  and  passions  of  sense,  but  at 
the  dictates  of  the  Spirit 

1  ft.  This  chapter  is,  as  we  have  seen,  an  expansion  of  x^P*'  ^ 
S«a>  8ta  'irjaov  Xpiarov  rov  Kxiplnv  rjuSiv  in  the  last  verse  of  ch.  vii.  It 
describes  the  innermost  circle  of  the  Christian  Life  from  its  begin- 
ning to  its  end — that  life  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks  elsewhere 
(Col.  iii.  3)  as  '  hid  wiih  Christ  in  God.'  It  works  gradually  up 
through  the  calm  exposition  and  pastoral  entreaty  of  w.  1-17  to 
the  more  impassioned  outlook  and  deeper  introspection  of  vv,  18-30, 
and  thence  to  the  magnificent  climax  of  w.  31-39. 

There  is  evidence  that  Marcion  retained  vr  i-i  i  of  this  chapter,  probably 
with  no  very  noticeable  variation  from  the  text  which  has  coitie  down  to  us 
(we  do  not  know  which  of  the  two  competing  readii  gs  he  had  in  ver.  10). 
Tertullian  leaps  from  viii.  11  to  x.  a,  implying  that  mncb  wm  cat  oat,  bat 
we  caanot  determine  how  much. 

1.  KaTdKpijma.  One  of  the  formulae  of  Justification :  KoriKpint 
and  KaraKpuxn  are  correlative  to  ^iKaima-K,  HiKaltofta ;  both  sets  of 
phrases  teing  properly  forensic.  Here,  however,  the  phrase  rolt 
eV  X.  'I.  which  follows  shows  that  the  initial  stage  in  the  Christian 
career,  which  is  in  the  strictest  sense  the  stage  of  Justification,  has 
been  left  behind  and  the  further  stage  of  union  with  Christ  has 
succeeded  to  it.  In  this  stage  too  there  is  the  same  freedom  from 
condemnation,  secureci  by  a  process  which  is  explained  more  fully 
in  ver.  3  (cf.  vi.  7-10).  The  KaraKpifrit  which  used  to  fall  upon  the 
sinner  now  falls  upon  his  oppressor  Sin. 

p,tj  KaTcl  ordpKa  ircpiiraTovcnv,  dXXd  tcard  mrrOfta.  An  interpolation 
introdnced  (from  vei.  4)  at  two  steps:  the  first  clause  fif)  /card  aipua  wtpim- 
Tovaiv  in  A  D*"  137,  f  m  Vulg.  I'esh.  Goth.  Ann.,  Bas.  Chrys. ;  the  second 
clause  dAAd  xarcL  irvtC/^a  in  the  mass  of  later  authorities  {<•  D*  E  K  L  P  «Scc. ; 
the  older  uncials  with  the  Egyptian  and  Ethiopic  Versions,  the  Latin  Vcnion 
of  Origen  and  perhaps  Orij^en  himsf  If  with  a  fourth-century  dialogue  attri- 
buted to  him,  Athanasins  and  others  omit  both. 

8.  4  y6\i.o%  TOO  n»'cufiaTos  =  the  authority  exercised  by  the  Spirit, 
We  have  had  the  same  somewhat  free  use  of  vofwt  in  the  last 
chapter,  esp.  in  ver.  236  yofn-s  roi  i>o6i,  6  vofios  rffs  ifiaprlas :  it  is  no 
longer  a  '  code '  but  an  authority  producing  regulated  action  such 
as  would  be  produced  by  a  code. 

Tou  n»'«ofiaTos  rfj-;  Iwtjs.  The  gen.  expresses  the  '  eflfect  wrought ' 
(Gif.),  hut  it  also  expre^es  more  :  the  Spirit  brings  life  because  it 
essentially  u  life. 


VUl.  2,  8.]  LIFE  IN   THE  SPIRIT  191 

ip  Xpi<rrw'li|vou  goes  with  f)'ktvd€p<aa-t :  the  authority  of  the  Spirit 
operating  through  the  union  with  Christ,  freed  me,  &c.  For  the 
phrase  itself  see  on  ch.  vi.  11 

^jXevO^pwo'^  |u.  A  small  group  of  importuit  authorities  (M  B  F  G, 
m  Pesh.,  Tert.  1/2  vel  potius  a/2  Chrys.  codd.)  has  ■^\fv9f puffer  at.  The 
combination  of  K  B  with  Latin  and  Syriac  authorities  shows  that  this  reading 
must  be  extremely  early,  going  back  to  the  time  before  the  Western  text 
diverged  from  the  main  body.  Still  it  can  hardly  be  right,  as  the  second 
person  is  nowhere  suggested  in  the  context,  and  it  is  more  probable  that  at 
is  only  a  mechanical  repetition  of  the  last  syllable  of  ■^KtvOepuat  (cc). 
Dr.  Hort  suggests  the  omission  of  both  pronouns  {^/ms  also  being  found), 
and  although  the  evidence  for  this  is  confined  to  some  MSS.  of  Arm.  (to 
which  Dr.  Hort  wouid  add  '  perhaps '  the  commentary  of  Origen  as  repre- 
sented by  Rufinus,  but  this  is  not  certain),  it  was  a  very  general  tendency 
among  scribes  to  supply  an  object  to  verbs  originally  without  one.  We  do 
not  expect  a  return  to  first  pers.  sing,  after  rois  iy  X.  'I.,  and  the  scanty 
evidence  for  omission  may  be  to  some  extent  paralleled,  e.g.  by  that  for  the 
omission  of  tvprjKtvai  in  iv.  1,  for  €«  7*  in  v.  6,  or  for  x^P**  '"'?  ^^V  ^  vii.  25. 
Bot  we  should  hardly  be  justified  in  doing  more  than  placing  fit  in  brackets. 

dir&  ToC  v6fkou  -njs  &^apHa9  nal  tou  daydrou  =  the  authority 
exercised  by  Sin  and  ending  in  Death:  bee  on  vii.  23,  and  on 
6  vofi.  T.  nvevfi.  above. 

8.  T&  Y&p  dSuKaroK  tou  v6^ov.  Two  questions  arise  as  to  these 
words,  (i)  What  is  their  construction?  The  common  view, 
adopted  also  by  Gif.  (who  compares  Eur.  Troad.  489),  is  that  they 
form  a  sort  of  nom.  absolute  in  apposition  to  the  sentence.  Gif. 
translates,  '  the  impotence  (see  below)  of  the  Law  being  this  that,' 
&c.  It  seems,  however,  somewhat  better  to  regard  the  words  in 
apposition  not  as  nom.  but  as  accui. 

A  most  accomplished  scholar,  the  late  Mr.  James  Riddell,  in  his  *  Digest 
of  Platonic  Idioms'  {Th*  Apology  «f  PUU»,  Oxford,  1877,  p.  122),  lays  down 
two  propositions  about  constructions  like  this :  *  (i)  These  Noun-Phrases  and 
Neuter-Pronouns  are  Accusatives.  The  prevalence  of  the  Neuter  Gender 
makes  this  difficult  to  prove ;  but  such  instances  as  are  decisive  afford  an 
analogy  for  the  rest:  Theaet.  153  C  it\  tovtois  rdr  KoXo(paiva,  drayicd^oi 
*poa^i$6.^ajy  k.t.K.  Ct  Soph.  0.  T.  603  koX  rwvS  iKtyxor  .  .  .  vtvOov,  and 
the  Adverbs  dpxfjv,  itcn^,  r^y  Trpirrrjv,  &c  (ii)  They  represent,  by  Appo- 
sition or  Substitution,  the  sentence  itself.  To  say,  that  tiiey  are  Cognate 
Accusatives,  or  in  Apposition  with  the  (unexpressed)  Cognate  Accus.,  would 
be  inadequate  to  the  facts.  For  (i)  in  most  of  the  instances  the  sense  points 
out  that  the  Noun-Phrase  or  Pronoun  stands  over  against  the  sentence,  or 
portion  of  a  sentence,  as  a  whole;  (a)  in  many  of  them,  not  the  internal 
force  but  merely  the  rhetorical  or  logical  form  of  the  sentence  is  in  view.  It 
might  be  said  that  they  are  Predicates,  while  the  sentence  itself  is  the 
Subject.'  [Examples  follow,  but  that  from  Theaet.  given  above  is  as  clear 
as  any.]  This  seems  to  criticize  by  anticipation  the  view  of  Va.,  who  regards 
rd  dSvv.  as  accus.  but  practically  explains  it  as  in  apposition  to  a  cognate 
accus.  which  is  not  expressed :  '  The  impossible  thing  of  the  Law  ,  . .  God 
[effected;  that  is  He]  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh.'  It  is  true  that  an  apt 
parallel  is  quoted  from  a  Cor.  vi.  13  t^p  8c  avrriy  avriiuadiav  wKarvvOtfT* 
Koi  vfitii :  but  this  would  seem  to  come  under  the  same  rule.  The  argTuuent 
that  if  ri  dJbw.  had  been  accus.  it  would  probably  hsve  stood  at  the  end  of 


I9t  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [VIII.  8 

the  aentenoe,  like  r))v  KoytKify  karpilap  vfiSrr  in  Rom.  xii.  i,  appears  to  be 
refnted  by  ror  teoX  otpwva  in  Thtatt.  above.  Win.  Gr.  §  zxxii.  7,  p.  390  E.  T. 
while  recognizing  the  accns.  use  (§  lix.  9,  p.  669  E.  T.),  seenu  to  prefer  to 
take  rJ  klIvv.  as  nom.    So  too  Mey.  Lips.  &c. 

(f)  Is  t6  ahvv.  active  or  passive  ?  Gif.,  after  Fri.  (cf.  also  Win. 
ut  tup.)  contends  for  the  formal,  on  the  ground  that  if  ahvv.  were 
passive  it  should  be  followed  by  ri  i/o/i«  not  rw  v6^au.  TertuUian 
\De  Res.  Corn.  46)  gives  the  phrase  an  active  sense  and  retains  the 
gen.,  quod  invalidum  erat  legis.  But  on  the  other  hand  if  not  Origen 
himself,  at  least  Rufinus  the  translator  of  Origen  has  a  passive 
rendering,  and  treats  rov  vofiov  as  practically  equivalent  to  ry  v6fif : 
quod  impossihile  erat  legi*.  Yet  Rufinus  himself  clearly  uses 
impossibilis  in  an  active  sense  in  his  comment ;  and  the  Greek  of 
Origen,  as  given  in  Cramer's  Catena,  p.  125,  appears  to  make  tA 

ahvv.  active :  &(Tirtp  yap  17  aptTTj  I8if  <Pv(Tfi  Itrxvpd,  ovra  Koi  ^  Kania  Koi 
r^  air  avr^i  dadfvr]  koi  dSvvara  .  .  .  Toii  rotovrov  v6fxov  if  f^vvu  divvardt 
iaru  Similarly  Cyr.-Alex.  (who  finds  fault  with  the  structure  of  the 
sentence) :  ro  dSvvarov,  toutc'ot*  tA  daOtPovv.  Vulg.  and  Cod,  Clarom. 
are  slightly  more  literal:  quod  impossibile  erat  legis.  The  gen.  might 
mean  that  there  was  a  spot  within  the  range  or  domain  of  Law 
marked  'impossible,'  a  portion  of  the  field  which  it  could  not 
control.  On  the  whole  the  passive  sense  appears  to  us  to  be  more 
in  accordance  with  the  BiblioU  use  of  dbiv.  and  also  to  give  a  some- 
what easier  construction :  if  ro  dbvv.  is  active  it  is  not  quite  a  simple 
case  of  apposition  to  the  sentence,  but  must  be  explained  as  a  sort 
of  nom.  absolute  ('  The  impotence  of  the  Law  being  this  that,'  &c., 
Gif.),  which  seems  rather  strained.  But  it  must  be  confessed  that 
the  balance  of  ancient  authority  is  strongly  in  favour  of  this  way  of 
taking  the  words,  and  that  on  a  point — the  natural  interpretation  of 
language— where  ancient  authority  is  especially  valuable. 

An  induction  from  the  use  of  LXX  and  N.  T.  wonld  seem  to  show  that 
iivvaroi  masc.  and  fem.  was  always  actiye  (so  twice  in  N.  T.,  twenty-two 
times  [3  VT.  11.]  in  LXX,  Wisd.  xvii.  14  r^v  dSwarov  ovron  vvKra  ical  If 
dSwdrov  aSov  ftvxwv  iirfXOovaav,  being  alone  somewhat  ambiguons  and 
peculiar),  while  dSvv.  nent.  was  always  passive  (so  five  times  in  LXX,  seven 
m  N.  T.).  It  ii  true  that  the  exact  phrase  t6  dSwaroy  does  not  occur,  but 
in  Luke  xviiL  37  we  have  rd  dStivara  wapd  dvOpirnou  iwarii  ian  wapd  r^  8<^. 

i¥  ^ :  not  '  because '  (Fri.  Win.  Mey.  Alf ),  but  '  in  which '  or 
'  wherein,'  defining  the  point  in  which  the  impossibility  (inability) 
of  the  Law  consisted.  For  fjadtvu  dih  r^t  <rapK6t  comp.  vii.  a  a,  aj. 
The  Law  points  the  way  to  what  is  right,  but  frail  humanity  is 
tempted  and  falls,  and  so  the  Law's  good  counsels  come  to  nothing. 

TOY  lauTou  ui6y.  The  emphatic  tavrov  brings  out  the  community 
of  nature  between  the  Faiher  and  the  Son :  cf.  rov  idiov  vioi  ver.  3a, 
rmi  wlov  r^  aydntjs  avrov  CoL  L  13. 

*  The  text  it  not  free  from  snxpidoa. 


VIII.  8,]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  193 

^i'  ifioi^fia-n  vapitds  d|AapTias  :  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  '  like '  ours 
inasmuch  as  it  is  flesh ;  '  like,'  and  only  '  like,'  because  it  is  not 
sinful:  osiendii  not  quidem  habere  carrum  peccati,  Filium  vera  Dei 
ntnilitudinem  habutsse  carnis  peccati,  non  carnem  peccait  {Ong.-\a.L). 

Pfleiderer  and  Holsten  contend  that  even  the  flesh  of  Christ  was 
•  sinful  flesh,'  i.e.  capable  of  sinning ;  but  they  are  decisively  refuted 
by  Gif.  p.  165.  Neither  the  Greek  nor  the. argument  requires  that 
the  flesh  of  Christ  shall  be  regarded  as  sinful  fleshy  though  it  is 
His  Flesh — His  Incarnation — which  brought  Him  into  contact 
«dth  Sin. 

Kal  ircpl  dfiapTias.  This  phrase  is  constantly  used  in  the  O.T. 
for  the  '  sin-offering ' ;  so  '  more  than  fifty  times  in  the  Book  of 
Leviticus  alone '  (Va.) ;  and  it  is  taken  in  this  sense  here  by  Orig.- 
lat.  Quod  hostia  pro  peccato  /actus  est  Christus,  et  oblatus  sit  pro 
purgatione  peccatorum,  omnes  Scripturae  iestantur  .  .  .  Per  hanc  ergo 
hosiiam  carnis  suae,  qucu  dicitur  pro  peccato,  damnavit  peccatum  in 
carne,  &c.  The  ritual  of  the  sin-offering  is  fully  set  forth  in  Lev.  iv. 
The  most  characteristic  feature  in  it  is  the  sprinkling  with  blood  of 
the  horns  of  the  altar  of  incense.  Its  object  was  to  make  atonement 
especially  for  sins  of  ignorance.  It  was  no  doubt  typical  of  the 
Sacrifice  of  Christ.  Still  we  need  not  suppose  the  phrase  nep\ 
iftofiT.  here  specially  limited  to  the  sense  of  'sin-offering.'  It 
includes  every  sense  in  which  the  Incarnation  and  Death  of  Christ 
had  relation  to,  and  had  it  for  their  object  to  remove,  human  sin. 

KaWKpii'e  TTji'  dftapTiaK  iv  tjj  aapxi.  The  key  to  this  difficult 
clause  is  supplied  by  ch.  vi.  7-10.  By  the  Death  of  Christ  upon  the 
Cross,  a  death  endured  in  His  human  nature.  He  once  and  for  ever 
broke  off  all  contact  with  Sin,  which  could  only  touch  Him  through 
that  nature.  HenceforLh  Sin  can  lay  no  claim  against  Him. 
Neither  can  it  lay  any  claim  against  the  believer ;  for  the  believer 
also  has  died  with  Christ.  Henceforth  when  Sin  comes  to  prosecute 
its  claim,  it  is  cast  in  its  suit  and  its  former  victim  is  acquitted. 
The  one  culminating  and  decisive  act  by  which  this  state  of  things 
was  brought  about  is  the  Death  of  Christ,  to  which  all  the  subse- 
quent immunity  of  Christians  is  to  be  referred. 

The  parallel  passage,  vi.  6-1 1,  shows  that  this  summary 
condemnation  of  Sin  takes  place  in  the  Death  of  Christ,  and  not 
in  His  Life ;  so  that  KoriKpivt  cannot  be  adequately  explained  either 
by  the  proof  which  Christ's  Incarnation  gave  that  human  nature 
might  be  sinless,  or  by  the  contrast  of  His  sinlessness  with  man's 
sin.  In  Matt.  xii.  41,  4a  ('  the  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise  up  in  the 
judgement  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it,'&c.)  KaraKplvtat 
has  this  sense  of  'condemn  by  contrast,'  but  there  is  a  greater  fulness 
of  meaning  here. 

The  ancients  rather  miss  the  mark  in  their  comments  on  this  passas;e. 
Tims  Orig.-lat  dammarit  t«(catum,  hoc  est,  fugavit  peccatum  tt  abttulH 


194  EPISTLE   TO  THE   ROMANS  [VIII.  8-5 

(comp.  T.  K.  Abbott,  'effectnaHy  condemned  no  as  to  expel'):  bnt  it  doei 
not  appear  how  this  was  done.  The  comnnoner  view  is  based  on  Cbry»., 
who  clainas  for  the  incarnate  Christ  a  threefold  victory  over  Sin,  as  not 
yielding  to  it,  as  overcoming  it  (in  a  forensic  sense),  and  convicting  it  ol 
injustice  m  handing  over  to  death  His  own  sinless  body  as  if  it  were  sinful. 
Similarly  Euthym.-Zig.  and  others  in  part.  Cyr.-Alex.  explains  the  victory 
of  Christ  over  Sin  as  passing  over  to  the  Christian  through  the  indwelling 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Eucharist  (6«1  t^j  fivarnt^s  (v\oyiat).  This  is 
at  least  right  in  so  far  as  it  lays  stress  on  the  identification  of  the  Christian 
v,-ith  Christ.  But  the  victory  over  sin  does  not  rest  on  the  mere  fact  of 
sinlessness,  but  on  the  absolute  severance  from  sin  involved  in  the  Death 
upon  the  Cross  and  the  Resnrrection. 

l¥  Tjj  aopKi  goes  with  KartKpiy*.  The  Death  of  Christ  has  the 
efficacy  which  it  has  because  it  is  the  death  of  His  Flesh  :  by  means 
of  death  He  broke  for  ever  the  power  of  Sin  upon  Him  (vi.  lo; 
Heb.  vii.  i6,-  x.  lo;  i  Pet.  iii.  18);  but  through  the  mystical 
union  with  Him  the  death  of  His  Flesh  means  the  death  of  ours 
(Lips.). 

4.  xi  SiKaiwfia:  'the  justifying,' Wic,  'the  justification,'  Rhem. 
after  Vulg.  iustificatio ;  Tyn.  is  better,  '  the  rightewesnes  requyred 
of  (/'.  e.  by)  the  lawe.'  We  have  already  seen  that  the  proper  sense 
of  diKoiafjia  is  '  that  which  is  laid  down  as  right,' '  that  which  has  the 
force  of  right ' :  hence  it  =  here  the  statutes  of  the  Law,  as  righteous 
statutes.     Comp.  on  i.  32;  ii.  a6. 

It  is  not  clear  how  Chrys.  («  Euthym.-Zig.)  gets  for  iimlwfia  the  kom 
ri  riKos,  6  OKovSt,  r6  tcarSpOuita.  t- 

Tois  fi^  itarA  vdpKa  irepiiraToCair :  '  those  who  walk  by  the  rule 
of  the  flesh,'  whose  guiding  principle  is  the  flesh  (and  its  grati- 
fication). The  antithesis  of  Flesh  and  Spirit  is  the  subject  of 
the  next  section. 


THE  IiIPE  OP  THE  PIiESH  AITD  THE  UTB  OF 

THE  spraiT 

VIII.  6-11.  Compare  the  two  states.  The  life  of  self- 
indulgence  involves  the  breach  of  God's  law,  hostility  to 
Him,  and  death.  Submission  to  the  Spirit  brings  with  it 
true  life  and  the  sense  of  reconciliation.  You  therefore, 
if  you  are  sincere  Christians,  have  in  the  presence  of  the 
Spirit  a  sure  pledge  of  immortality. 

'  These  two  modes  of  life  are  directly  opposed  to  one  another. 
If  any  man  gives  way  to  the  gratifications  of  sense,  then  these  and 
nothing  else  occupy  his  thoughts  and  determine  the  bent  of  his 
character.     And  on  the  other  hand,  those  who  let  the  Holy  Spirit 


VHL  6,  e.J  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  I95 

guide  them  fix  their  thoughts  and  affections  on  things  spiritual 
•  They  are  opposed  in  their  nature ;  they  are  opposed  also  in  their 
consequences.  For  the  consequence  of  having  one's  bent  towards 
the  things  of  the  flesh  is  death — both  of  soul  and  body,  both  here 
and  hereafter  Just  as  to  surrender  one's  thoughts  and  motives  to 
the  Spirit  brings  with  it  a  quickened  vitality  through  the  whole  man, 
and  a  tranquillizing  sense  of  reconciliation  with  God. 

'  The  gratifying  of  the  flesh  can  lead  only  to  death,  because  it 
implies  hostility  to  God.  It  is  impossible  for  one  who  indulges  the 
flesh  at  the  same  time  to  obey  the  law  of  God.  *  And  those  who 
are  under  the  influence  of  the  flesh  cannot  please  God.  *  But  you, 
as  Christians,  are  no  longer  under  the  influence  of  the  flesh.  You 
are  rather  under  that  of  the  Spirit,  if  the  Spirit  of  God  (which,  be  it 
remembered,  is  the  medium  of  personal  contact  with  God  and 
Christ)  is  really  in  abiding  communion  with  you.  "  But  if  Christ, 
through  His  Spirit,  thus  keeps  touch  with  yoiu-  souls,  then  mark 
how  glorious  is  your  condition.  Your  body  it  is  true  is  doomed  to 
death,  because  it  is  tainted  with  sin ;  but  your  spirit — the  highest 
part  of  you — has  life  infused  into  it  because  of  its  new  state  of 
righteousness  to  which  life  is  so  nearly  allied.  "  In  possessing  the 
Spirit  you  have  a  guarantee  of  future  resurrection.  It  links  you  to 
Him  whom  God  raised  from  the  dead.  And  so  even  these  perish- 
able human  bodies  of  yours,  though  they  die  first,  God  will  restore 
to  life,  through  the  operation  of  (or,  having  regard  to)  that  Holy 
Spirit  by  whom  they  are  animated. 

5.  ^poroOcnv:  'set  their  minds,  or  their  hearts  upon.'  ^popw 
denotes  the  whole  action  of  the  <t>priv,  i.  e.  of  the  affections  and  will 
as  well  as  of  the  reason ;  cf.  Matt.  xvi.  23  ow  <ppov€is  ra  tov  e<ov, 
aWa  TO  rav  dvBpdmotv  :  Rom.  xiL  16 ;  Phil.  iii.  19  ;  Col.  iii.  2,  Sec. 

6.  <t>p<$ini)|ia :  the  content  of  (^povdv,  the  general  bent  of  thought 
and  motive.  Here,  as  elsewhere  in  these  chapters,  a-dp^  is  that  side 
of  human  nature  on  which  it  is  morally  weak,  the  side  on  which 
man's  physical  organism  leads  him  into  sin. 

OdfaTos.  Not  merely  is  the  (ppovrjua  Trjs  <rapK6s  death  in  «^eci, 
inasmuch  as  it  has  death  for  its  goal,  but  it  is  also  a  present  death, 
inasmuch  as  its  present  condition  contains  the  seeds  which  by 
their  own  inherent  force  will  develop  into  the  death  both  of  body 
and  soul. 

IfcMI.  In  contrast  with  the  state  of  things  just  described,  where 
the  whole  bent  of  the  mind  is  towards  the  things  of  tnc  Spirit,  not 


ig6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VHI.  6-9 

only  is  there '  life '  in  the  sense  that  a  career  so  ordered  will  issue  in 
life ;  it  has  already  in  itself  the  germs  of  life.  As  the  Spirit  itself  is 
in  Its  essence  living,  so  does  It  impart  that  which  must  live. 

For  a  ftriking  presentation  of  the  Biblical  doctrine  of  Life  see  Hort, 
Hulsean  L$ctur€S,  pp.  98  flf.,  189  fF.  The  following  may  be  qnoted:  'The 
tense  of  life  which  Israel  enjoyed  was,  however,  best  expressed  in  the  choice 
of  the  name  "life"  ai  a  designation  of  that  higher  communion  with  God 
which  grew  forth  in  due  time  as  the  fruit  of  obedience  and  faith.  The 
psalmist  or  wise  man  or  prophet,  whose  heart  had  sought  the  face  of  the 
Lord,  was  conscious  of  a  second  or  divine  life,  of  which  the  first  or  natural 
life  was  at  once  the  image  and  the  foundation;  a  life  not  imprisoned  in 
some  secret  recess  of  his  soul,  but  filling  his  whole  self,  and  overflowing 
upon  the  earth  around  him '  p.  98).  Add  St  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  in- 
dwelling Spirit,  and  the  intensity  of  his  language  becomes  intelligible. 

«tpil»Tj  =  as  we  have  seen  not  only  (i)  the  state  of  reconciliation 
with  God,  but  (ii)  the  sense  of  that  reconciliation  which  diflfuses 
a  feeling  of  harmony  and  tranquillity  over  the  whole  man. 

7.  This  verse  assigns  the  reason  why  the  '  mind  of  the  flesh  is 
death,'  at  the  same  time  bringing  out  the  further  contrast  between 
the  mind  of  the  flesh  and  that  of  the  Spirit  suggested  by  the 
description  of  the  latter  as  not  only  '  life '  but  '  peace.'  The  mind 
of  the  flesh  is  the  opposite  of  peace ;  it  involves  hostility  to  God, 
declared  by  disobedience  to  His  Law.  This  disobedience  is  the 
natural  and  inevitable  consequence  of  giving  way  to  the  flesh. 

8.  01  8^ :  not  as  AV.  *  so  these,'  as  if  it  marked  a  consequence  or 
conclusion  from  ver.  7,  but  '  And ' :  ver.  8  merely  repeats  the 
substance  of  ver.  7  in  a  slightly  different  form,  no  longer  abstract 
but  personal.  The  way  is  thus  paved  for  a  more  direct  application 
to  the  readers. 

9.  Iv  aapKi, .  ,  .Iv  ysv^i^txTK.  Observe  how  the  thought  mounts 
gradually  upwards.  tXvai.  iv  aapid  =  *  to  be  under  the  domination  of 
[the]  flesh ' ;  corresponding  to  this  flvai  iv  irvfvfuiTi  =  '  to  be  under 
the  domination  of  [the]  spirit,'  1.  e.  in  the  first  instance,  the  human 
spirit.  Just  as  in  the  one  case  the  man  takes  his  whole  bent  and 
bias  frorti  the  lower  part  of  his  nature,  so  in  the  other  case  he  takes 
it  from  the  highest  part  of  his  nature.  But  that  highest  part,  the 
nvtvfxa,  is  what  it  is  by  virtue  of  its  affinity  to  God.  It  is  essentially 
that  part  of  the  man  which  holds  communion  with  God :  so  that 
the  Apostle  is  naturally  led  to  think  of  the  Divine  influences  which 
act  upon  the  nvevfia.  He  rises  almost  imperceptibly  through  the 
nvt'^a  of  man  to  the  nvevfia  of  God.  From  thinking  of  the  way  in 
which  the  nvtvfia  in  its  best  moods  acts  upon  the  character  he 
passes  on  to  that  influence  from  without  which  keeps  it  in  its  best 
moods.  This  is  what  he  means  when  he  says  (Jn-tp  n.v(v(ia  Qtov 
olxtl  iv  vfiiv.  oUtlv  iv  denotes  a  settled  permanent  penetrative 
influence.  Such  an  influence,  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  St.  Paul 
assumes  to  be  inseparable  from  the  higher  life  of  the  Christian. 


^11.  a,  10.]  LIFE  IN   THE  SPIRIT  I97 

The  way  in  which  iv  aapKi  is  opposed  to  iv  mtiiicen,  and  ftirther 
the  way  in  which  iv  irvtvfiart  passes  from  the  spirit  of  man  to  the 
Spirit  of  God,  shows  that  we  must  not  press  the  local  significance  of 
the  preposition  too  closely.  We  must  not  interpret  any  of  the 
varied  expressions  which  the  Apostle  uses  in  such  a  sense  as  to 
infringe  upon  the  distinctness  of  the  human  and  Divine  personalities. 
The  one  thing  which  is  characteristic  of  personality  is  distinctness 
from  all  other  personalities ;  and  this  must  hold  good  even  of  the 
relation  of  man  to  God.  The  very  ease  with  which  St.  Paul  changes 
and  inverts  his  metaphors  shows  that  the  Divine  immanence  with 
him  nowhere  means  Buddhistic  or  Pantheistic  absorption.  We 
must  be  careful  to  keep  clear  of  this,  but  short  of  it  we  may  use  the 
language  of  closest  intimacy.  All  that  friend  can  possibly  receive 
from  friend  we  may  believe  that  man  is  capable  of  receiving  from 
God.  See  the  note  on  iv  Xpurra  "lijo-oC  in  vi.  1 1 ;  and  for  the  anti- 
thesis of  o-ap^  and  nvtvfia  the  small  print  note  on  vii.  14. 

ci  W  Tis.  A  characteristic  delicacy  of  expression :  when  he  is 
speaking  on  the  positive  side  St.  Paul  assumes  that  his  readers  have 
the  Spirit,  but  when  he  is  speaking  on  the  negative  side  he  will  not 
say  bluntly  '  if  you  have  not  the  Spirit,'  but  he  at  once  throws 
his  sentence  into  a  vague  and  general  force,  'if  any  one  has 
not,'  &c. 

There  are  some  good  remarks  on  the  grammar  of  the  conditional  clauies 
in  this  verse  and  in  tv.  10,  35,  in  Barton,  M.  and  T.  §§  469,  343,  361. 

odK  loTir  oAtou  :  he  is  no  true  Christian.  This  amounts  to 
saying  that  all  Christians  'have  the  Spirit'  in  greater  or  less 
degree. 

10.  €1  ^  Xpiorr^s.  It  will  be  observed  that  St.  Paul  uses  the 
phrases  Tlvtv^  e*ov,  nveO/wi  Xpttrrov,  and  XptoTcJr  in  these  two  verses 
as  practically  interchangeable.  On  the  significance  of  this  in  its 
bearing  upon  the  relation  of  the  Divine  Persons  see  below. 

T^  fACK  o-b)|ia  ccKp&K  81'  dfiapTiak'.  St.  Paul  is  putting  forward  first 
the  negative  and  then  the  positive  consequences  of  the  indwelling 
of  Christ,  or  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  in  the  soul.  But  what  is  the 
meaning  of '  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin  ? '  Of  many  ways  of 
taking  the  words,  the  most  important  seem  to  be  these :  (i)  *  the 
body  is  dead  tmputaiive,  in  baptism  (vi.  2  flf.),  as  a  consequence  01 
sin  which  made  this  implication  of  the  body  in  the  Death  of  Christ 
necessary'  (Lips.).  But  in  the  next  verse,  to  which  this  cjjarly 
points  forward,  the  stress  lies  not  on  death  imputed  but  on  physical 
death,  (ii)  '  The  body  is  dead  mystice,  as  no  longer  the  instrument 
of  sin  (  sans  ^nergie  productrice  des  acies  charnels),  because  of  sin — 
to  which  it  led '  (Oltr.).  This  is  open  to  the  same  objection  as  the 
last,  with  the  addition  that  it  does  not  give  a  satisfactory  explanation 
(^  &'  inaprimf,    (iii)  It  remains  to  take  Mxp^  in  the  plain  sense  of 


198  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VIII.  10, 11 

'  physical  death,'  and  to  go  back  for  ii  dfiaprlap  not  to  vi.  a  ff.  but 
to  V.  I  a  ff.,  so  that  it  would  be  the  sin  of  Adam  and  his  descendants 
(Aug.  Gif.  Go.)  perpetuated  to  the  end  of  time.  Oltr.  objects  that 
ytKpoP  in  this  case  ought  to  be  6vr)T6v,  but  the  use  of  veKpov  gives 
a  more  vivid  and  pointed  contrast  to  ^c^i} — '  a  dead  thing.' 

t6  8c  •iTi'eo|ia  l«^  8101  SiKaioo'urr]!'.  Clearly  the  nvtifia  here  meant 
is  the  human  nvtifia  which  has  the  properties  of  life  infused  into  it 
by  the  presence  of  the  Divine  mtiixa.  fcoij  is  to  be  taken  in  a  wide 
sense,  but  with  especial  stress  on  the  future  eternal  life,  iia  Hikmo- 
(Tiiinjv  is  also  to  be  taken  in  a  wide  sense :  it  includes  all  the  senses 
in  which  righteousness  is  brought  home  to  man,  first  imputed,  then 
irn^rted,  then  practised. 
'  u)  St.  Paul  is  fond  of  arguing  from  the  Resurrection  of  Christ 
to  the  resurrection  of  the  Christian  (see  p.  1 17  sup.).  Christ  is  the 
anapxh  (i  Cor.  XV.  20,  23  :  the  same  power  which  raised  Him  will 
raise  us  (i  Cor.  vi.  14;  1  Cor.  iv.  14);  Phil.  iii.  ai;  i  Thess. 
iv.  14).  But  nowhere  is  the  argument  given  in  so  full  and  complete 
a  form  as  here.  The  link  which  connects  the  believer  with  Chrisjt, 
and  makes  him  participate  in  Christ's  resurrection,  is  the  possession 
of  His  Spirit  (cp.  I  Thess.  iv.  14  rovi  woiiiT^Oivras  fita  t«;  'Iijffov  &^u 
Ovv  ai)Ta>\ 

81&  ToG  ^KoiKouKTos  ofiroC  ncEufiaros.  The  authorities  for  the  two 
readings,  the  gen.  as  above  and  the  ace.  BUi  t6  (voikovv  airrov  Uvtvfm, 
seem  at  first  sight  very  evenly  divided.  For  gen.  we  have  a  long 
line  of  authorities  headed  by  t^  A  C,  Clem.-Alex.  For  ace.  we  have 
a  still  longer  line  headed  by  B  D,  Orig.  Iren.-lat 

Id  fuller  detail  the  evidence  is  as  follows : 

8(d  rod  ivoiKovvToi  «.t.a.  N  A  C  P"  o/.,  cadd.  a/>.  Ps.-Ath.  Dial.  t.  Mcuedtn., 

Boh.    Sah.    Hard.    Arm.    Aeth.,    Clem.-Alex,    Method,    {codd.    Graec. 
locorum  ab  Epiphanio  citatorum)  Cj  r.-Hieros  codd.  plur.  tt  «d.  Did.  4/5 
Bas  4/4  Chrys.  <id  i  Cor.  xv.  45.  Cvr.-Alex.  ttr,  al.  plur. 
&a   TO  IvoiKolv  K.T.K.  BDEFtiKLP  &c.,  codd.  op.  Ps.-Ath.  Dial.  c. 
Macedon.;  Vulg.  Pesh.  (Sah.  codd.);  Iren.-lat.  Grig,  pluries;  Method. 
vers.  tlav.  et  codd.   Epiphanii  1/3  et  tx  parte  a/.^;,  Cyr.-Hieros.  cod, 
Did.-lat.  semel  {interp.  Hieron.)  Chrys.  ad  lex.  Tert.  Hil.  al  plur. 
When  these  lists  are  examined,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  thnt  the  authoritiet 
for  the  gen.  are  predominantly  Alexandrian,  and  those  for  the  ace.  predomi- 
nantly Western.     The  question  is  how  fJar  in  each  case  this  main  body  u 
reinforced  by  more  independent  evidence.     From  this  point  of  view  a  some- 
what  increased  importance  attaches  to  Hard.  Arm.  Hippol.  Cyr.-Hieros. 
Bas.  on  the  side  of  the  gen.  and  to  B,  Orig.  on  the  side  of  the  ace.     The 
testimony  of   Method,   is  not  quite  clear.     The   firs*   place   in  which   the 
passage  occurs  is  a  quotation  from  Origen  :  here  the  true  reading  is  probably 
84A  TO  kvoucuw,  as  elsewhere  in  that  writer.     The  other  two  plices  belong  to 
Methodius  himself.     Here  too  the  Slavonic  version  has  in  both  caaes  ace ; 
tie  Greek  preserved  in  Epiphanius  has  in  one  instance  ace,  in  the  other  gen. 
It  is  perhaps  on  the  whole  probable  that  Method,  himself  read  ace.  and  that 
gCD.  IS  due  to  Epiphanius,  who  undoubtedly  was  in  the  habit  of  using  g):n. 
In  balancinjT  the  opposed  evidence  we  remember  that   there  is  a  distinct 
WMtets  ioiosioo  in  both  B  and  Orig.  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  ao  that  the  ace. 


Vni.  S-U.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  I99 

may  rest  not  on  the  authority  of  two  families  of  text,  bat  only  of  one.     On 

the  other  hand,  to  Alexandria  we  must  add  Palestine,  which  would  connt 
for  something,  though  not  very  much,  as  being  within  the  sphere  of  Alexan- 
drian influence,  and  Cappadocia,  which  would  count  for  rather  more;  but 
what  is  of  most  importance  is  the  attesting  of  the  Alexandrian  reading  so  far 
West  as  Hippolytus.  Too  much  importance  must  not  be  attached  to  the 
assertion  of  the  orthodox  controversialist  in  the  Dial.  t.  Macedonios,  that 
gen.  is  found  in  '  all  the  ancient  copies ' ;  the  author  of  the  dialogue  allows 
that  the  reading  is  questionable. 

On  the  whole  the  preponderance  seems  to  be  slightly  on  the  side 
of  the  gen.,  but  neither  reading  can  be  ignored.  Intrinsically  the 
one  reading  is  not  clearly  preferable  to  the  other.  St  Paul  might 
have  used  equally  well  either  form  of  expression.  It  is  however 
hardly  adequate  to  say  with  Dr.  Vaughan  that  if  we  read  the  ace. 
the  reference  is  •  to  the  ennobling  and  consecrating  effect  of  the 
indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  human  body.'  The  prominent 
idea  is  rather  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  Itself  essentially  a  Spirit  of  Life, 
and  therefore  it  is  natural  that  where  It  is  life  should  be.  The  gen. 
brings  out  rather  more  the  direct  and  personal  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  of  course  commended  the  reading  to  the  supporters  of 
orthodox  doctrine  in  the  Macedonian  controversy. 

Tk*  Person  and  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Spirit  of  God  or  the  Holy  Spirit  is  taken 
over  from  the  O.T.,  where  we  have  it  conspicuously  in  relation  to 
Creation  (Gen.  i.  2),  in  relation  to  Prophecy  (i  Sam.  x.  10;  xi.  6  ; 
xix.  20,  23,  &c.),  and  in  relation  to  the  religious  Hfe  of  the  individual 
(Ps.  li.  11)  and  of  the  nation  (Is.  Ixiii.  lo  f.).  It  was  understood 
that  the  Messiah  had  a  plenary  endowment  of  this  Spirit  (Is.  xi.  2). 
And  accordingly  in  the  N.T.  the  Gospels  unanimously  record  the 
visible,  if  symbolical,  manifestation  of  this  endowment  (Mark  i.  10 ; 
Jo.  L  32).  And  it  is  an  expression  of  the  same  truth  when  in  this 
passage  and  elsewhere  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ 
convertibly  with  Christ  Himself.  Just  as  there  are  many  passages 
in  which  he  uses  precisely  the  same  language  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
and  of  God  Himself,  so  also  there  are  manv  others  in  which  he 
uses  the  same  language  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  and  of  Christ 
Himself.  Thus  the  'demonstration  of  the  Spirit'  is  a  demonstra- 
tion also  of  the  'power  of  God'  (i  Cor.  ii.  4,  5);  the  working  of 
the  Spirit  is  a  working  of  God  Himself  (i  Cor.  xii.  11  compared 
with  ver.  6)  and  ot  Christ  (Eph.  iv.  11  compared  with  1  Cor.  xii. 
28,  4).  To  be  '  Christ's '  is  the  same  thing  as  to  '  live  in  the  Spirit ' 
(Gal.  V.  22  ff.).  Nay,  in  one  place  Christ  is  expressly  identified 
with  '  the  Spirit ' :  '  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit '  (2  Cor.  iu.  1 7) :  a  passage 
which  has  a  seemingly  remarkable  parallel  in  Ignat.  Ad  Magn.  xv 
tppua6*  t¥  iiiaimuf.  etov,  KiKTriiUvot  aduuuwsiov  w^ntUK  &  ifmv  'hxroin 


900  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VIII.  6-lL 

KpurrSt  (where  however  Bp.  Lightfoot  makes  the  antecedent  to  fc 
not  nvfvud  but  the  whole  sentence  ;  his  note  should  be  read).  The 
key  to  these  expressions  is  really  supplied  by  the  passage  before  us, 
from  which  it  appears  that  the  communication  of  Christ  to  the  soul 
is  really  the  communication  of  His  Spirit.  And,  strange  to  say,  we 
find  this  language,  which  seems  so  individual,  echoed  not  only  possibly 
by  Ignatius  but  certainly  by  St.  John.  As  Mr.  Gore  puts  it  {Bampion 
Ltctura,  p.  132),  'In  the  coming  of  the  Spirit  the  Son  too  was  to 
come  ;  in  the  coming  of  the  Son,  also  the  Father.  "  He  will  come 
unto  you,"  "  I  will  come  unto  you,"  "  We  will  come  unto  you  "  are 
interchangeable  phrases  '  (cf.  St.  John  xiv  16-23). 

This  is  the  first  point  which  must  be  borne  clearly  in  mind  :  in 
their  relation  to  the  human  soul  the  Father  and  the  Son  act  through 
and  are  represented  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  yet  the  Spirit  is  not 
merged  either  in  the  Father  or  in  the  Son.  This  is  the  comple- 
mentary truth.  Along  with  the  language  of  identity  there  is  other 
language  which  implies  distinction. 

It  is  not  only  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  related  to  God  in  the 
game  sort  of  way  in  which  the  spirit  of  man  is  related  to  the  man. 
In  this  very  chapter  the  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  standing  over 
against  the  Father  and  pleading  with  Him  (Rom.  viii.  26  f.),  and 
a  number  of  other  actions  which  we  should  call  '  personal '  are 
ascribed  to  Him — 'dwelling'  (w.  9,  1 1 ),' leading '  (ver.  14), 
'witnessing'  (ver.  16),  'assisting'  (ver.  26).  In  the  last  verse  of 
2  Corinthians  St.  Paul  distinctly  co-ordinates  the  Holy  Spirit  with 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  And  even  where  St.  John  speaks  of  the 
Son  as  coming  again  in  the  Spirit,  it  is  not  as  the  same  but  as 
•other';  'another  Paraclete  will  He  give  you'  (St.  John  xiv.  16). 
The  language  of  identity  is  only  partial,  and  is  confined  within 
strict  limits.  Nowhere  does  St.  Paul  give  the  name  of '  Spirit '  to 
Him  who  died  upon  the  Cross,  and  rose  again,  and  will  return 
once  more  to  judgement.  There  is  a  method  running  through  the 
language  of  both  Apostles. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  is  really  an  extension, 
a  natural  if  not  necessary  consequence,  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation.  As  soon  as  it  came  to  be  clearly  realized  that  the 
Son  of  God  had  walked  the  earth  as  an  individual  man  among 
men  it  was  inevitable  that  there  should  be  recognized  a  dis- 
tinction, and  such  a  distinction  as  in  human  language  could  only 
be  described  as  'personal'  in  the  Godhead.  But  if  there  was 
a  twofold  distinction,  then  it  was  wholly  in  accordance  with  the 
body  of  ideas  derived  from  the  O.  T.  to  say  also  a  threefold 
distinction. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  in  the  presentation  of  this  last 
step  in  the  doctrine  there  is  a  difference  between  St.  Paul  and 
St  John  corresponding  to  a  difiference  in  the  experience  of  the 


Vin.  12-10.]  LIFE  IN   THE  SPIRIT  aoi 

two  Apostles.  In  both  cases  it  is  this  actual  experience  which 
gives  the  standpoint  from  which  they  write.  St.  John,  who  had 
heard  and  seen  and  handled  the  Word  of  Life,  who  had  stood 
beneath  the  cross  and  looked  into  the  empty  tomb,  when  he 
thinks  of  the  coming  of  the  Paraclete  naturally  thinks  of  Him 
as  '  another  Paraclete.'  St.  Paul,  who  had  not  had  the  same 
privileges,  but  who  was  conscious  that  from  the  moment  of  his 
vision  upon  the  road  to  Damascus  a  new  force  had  entered  into 
his  soul,  as  naturally  connects  the  force  and  the  vision,  and  sees  in 
what  he  feels  to  be  the  work  of  the  Spirit  the  work  also  of  the 
exalted  Son.  To  St.  John  the  first  visible  Paraclete  and  the 
second  invisible  could  not  but  be  diiferent;  to  St.  Paul  the  in- 
visible influence  which  wrought  so  powerfully  in  him  seemed  to 
stream  directly  from  the  presence  of  Him  whom  be  had  heard 
from  heaven  call  him  by  his  name. 


BONBHIP  AJSTD  HEntSHTP. 

VIII.  11-17.  Live  then  as  men  bound  for  such  a  destiny y 
ascetics  as  to  your  worldly  life,  heirs  of  immortality.  The 
Spirit  implanted  and  confirms  in  you  the  consciousness  of 
your  inheritance.  It  tells  you  that  you  are  in  a  special  sense 
sons  of  God,  and  that  you  must  some  day  share  the  glory  tc 
which  Christy  your  Elder  Brother,  has  gone. 

^'Such  a  destiny  has  its  obligations.  To  the  flesh  yon  owe 
nothing.  *•  If  you  live  as  it  would  have  you,  you  must  inevitably 
die.  But  if  by  the  help  of  the  Spirit  you  sternly  put  an  end  to 
the  licence  of  the  flesh,  then  in  the  fullest  sense  you  will  live. 

"Why  so?  Why  that  necessary  consequence?  The  link  is 
here.  All  who  follow  the  leading  of  God's  Spirit  are  certainly  by 
that  very  fact  special  objects  of  His  favour.  They  do  indeed  enjoy 
the  highest  title  and  the  highest  privileges.     They  are  His  sons. 

^*  When  you  were  first  baptized,  and  the  communication  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  sealed  your  admission  into  the  Christian  fold,  the 
energies  which  He  imparted  were  surely  not  those  of  a  slave. 
You  had  not  once  more  to  tremble  under  the  lash  of  the  Law. 
No:  He  gave  you  rather  the  proud  inspiring  consciousness  of 
men  admitted  into  His  family,  adopted  as  His  sons.  And  the 
consciousness  of  that  relation  unlocks  our  lips  in  tender  filial 
appeal  to  God  as  our  Father.    **  Two  voices  are  distinctly  heard : 


lot  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [VIII.  12-16. 

one  we  know  to  be  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  the  other  is  the  voice 
of  our  own  consciousness.  And  both  bear  witness  to  the  same 
fact  that  we  are  children  of  God.  '^But  to  be  a  child  implies 
something  more.  The  child  will  one  day  inherit  his  father's 
possessions.  So  the  Christian  will  one  day  enter  upon  that 
glorious  inheritance  which  his  Heavenly  Father  has  in  store  for 
him  and  on  which  Christ  as  his  Elder  Brother  has  already  entered. 
Only,  be  it  remembered,  that  in  order  to  share  in  the  glory,  it  is 
necessary  firkt  to  share  in  the  suflferings  which  lead  to  it. 

12.  Lipsius  would  unite  w.  la,  13  closely  with  the  foregoing; 
and  no  doubt  it  is  true  that  these  verses  only  contain  the 
conclusion  of  the  previous  paragraph  thrown  into  a  hortatory 
form.  Still  it  is  usual  to  mark  this  transition  to  exhortation  by 
a  new  paragraph  (as  at  vi.  la);  and  although  a  new  idea  (that 
of  heirship)  is  introduced  at  ver.  14,  thai  idea  is  only  subor- 
dinate to  the  main  argument,  the  assurance  which  the  Spirit  gives 
of  future  life.     See  also  the  note  on  ovv  in  x.  14. 

18.  TTj-cojiari.  The  antithesis  to  a-dp^  seems  to  show  that  this 
is  still,  as  in  w.  4,  5,  9,  the  human  n-yev/xa,  but  it  is  the  human 
nvdfia  in  direct  contact  with  the  Divine. 

Tos  Trpd^cis :  of  wicked  doings,  as  in  Luke  xxiii.  51. 

14.  The   phrases  which   occur   in  this  section,   nvfvftan  ©ew 

ayovrai,  to  Ilt'eifjia  a-vyLfxuprupfi   Ttf   irvfvpaTt,  r)piov,  are  clear   prOOf  that 

the  other  group  of  phrases  eV  irvtvfiari  dvai,  or  t6  Uvtvp.n  oIku  (<Vot(cf i) 
«V  s;/Lirp  are  not  intended  in  any  way  to  impair  the  essential  distinct- 
ness and  independence  of  the  human  personality.  There  is  no 
such  Divine  *  immanence  '  as  would  obliterate  this.  The  analogy 
to  be  kept  in  view  is  the  personal  influence  of  one  human  being 
upon  another.  We  know  to  what  heights  this  may  rise.  The 
Divine  influence  may  be  still  more  subtle  and  penetrative,  but  it  is 
not  different  in  kind. 

oiol  0€ou.  The  difference  between  ulo's  and  t«i«i'  appears  to  be 
that  whereas  t(kvop  denotes  the  natural  relationship  of  child  to 
parent,  wio'f  implies,  in  addition  to  this,  the  recognized  status  and 
legal  privileges  reserved  for  sons,  Cf.  Westcott  on  St.  John  i.  la 
and  the  parallels  there  noted. 

15.  TTfeo/xo  SouXeias.  This  is  another  subde  variation  in  the 
use  of  vvivpn.  From  meaning  the  human  spirit  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Divine  Spirit  nvtvpa.  comes  to  mean  a  particular 
state,  habit,  or  temper  of  the  human  spirit,  sometimes  in  itself 

{riVivpM   (r}\(0(T(a)s  Num.  V.   I4,   30  ;    Jiv,  d(tr;StVis  Is,  Ixi.   3  ;    WP.  TTOpveiat 

Hos.  iv.  I  a),  but  more  often  as  due  to  supernatural  influence,  good 
or  evil  {nw,  atxpLas  «c.T.X.  Is.  xi.  a ;  m-.  irXav^o-«a»j  Is.  xix.  14 ;  in». 
npltnmt  Is.  ZXviii.  6;  m.  maravifymt  Ig.  xxix.   lO   (sb  Rom    XL   8); 


VIII.  16-17.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  %o^ 

m*.  x^P^rot  m\  oticrtpnov  Zech.  xii.  lo  ;  nv.  d(T0eutias  Lvike  xiii.  ii; 
WW.  ittXias  2  Tim.  i.  7 ;  ro  fr».  rijs  n\dvrjs  I  Jo.  iv.  6).  So  here 
ir».  iovkdas  =  such  a  spirit  as  accompanies  a  state  of  slavery,  such 
a  servile  habit  as  the  human  irvd^m  assumes  among  slaves.  This 
was  not  the  temper  which  you  had  imparted  to  you  at  your  bap- 
tism {iki^tTt).  The  slavery  is  that  of  the  Law  :  cf.  Gal.  iv  6  7 
fl4,  V.  I.  '  " 

■irdXiK  CIS  ^($Por ;  '  so  as  to  relapse  into  a  state  of  fear.'  The 
candidate  for  baptism  did  not  emerge  from  the  terrors  of  the 
Law  only  to  be  thrown  back  into  them  again. 

uioeeaias :  a  word  coined,  but  rightly  coined,  from  the  classical 
phrase  vibi  ridfireai  {OfToi  vl6s).  It  seems  however  too  much  to 
say  with  Gif.  that  the  coinage  was  probably  due  to  St.  Paul  him- 
self. 'No  word  is  more  common  in  Greek  inscriptions  of  the 
Hellenistic  time :  the  idea,  like  the  word,  is  native  Greek '  (E  L 
Hicks  in  S/udm  Biblica,  iv.  8).  This  doubtless  points  to  the 
quarter  from  which  St.  Paul  derived  the  word,  as  the  Jews  had 
not  the  practice  of  adoption. 

'Appo,  i  TTOTT^p.  The  repetition  of  this  word,  first  in  Aramaic 
and  then  in  Greek,  is  remarkable  and  brings  home  to  us  the  fact 
that  Christianity  had  its  birth  in  a  bilingual  people.  The  same 
repetition  occurs  in  Mark  xiv.  36  {'  Abba,  Father,  all  things  are 
possible  to  Thee  ')  and  in  Gal.  iv.  6  :  it  gives  a  greater  intensity  of 
expression,  but  would  only  be  natural  where  the  speaker  was 
using  in  both  cases  his  familiar  tongue.  Lightfoot  {Hor.  Heb.  on 
Mark  xiv.  36)  thinks  that  in  the  Gospel  the  word  ' ^m'a  only  was 
used  by  our  Lord  and  h  Har^p  added  as  an  interpretation  by 
St.  Mark,  and  that  in  like  manner  St.  Paul  is  interpreting  for  the 
benefit  of  his  readers.  The  three  passages  are  however  all  too 
emotional  for  this  explanation :  interpretation  is  out  of  place  in 
a  prayer.  It  seems  better  to  suppose  that  our  Lord  Himself, 
using  familiarly  both  languages,  and  concentrating  into  this  word 
of  aU  words  such  a  depth  of  meaning,  found  Himself  impelled 
spontaneously  to  repeat  the  word,  and  that  some  among  His 
disciples  caught  and  transmitted  the  same  habit.  It  is  significant 
however  of  the  limited  extent  of  strictly  Jewish  Christianity  that 
we  find  no  other  original  examples  of  the  use  than  these  three. 

16.  aurb  t6  nceCjio :  see  on  ver.  14  above. 

aufifiapTupct :  cf.  ii.  15;  ix.  2.  There  the  'joint-witness'  was 
the  subjective  testimony  of  conscience,  confirming  the  objective 
testimony  of  a  man's  works  or  actions  ;  here  consciousness  is 
analyzed,  and  its  da/a  are  referred  partly  to  the  man  himself,  partly 
to  the  Spirit  of  God  moving  and  prompting  him. 

17.  KXrjpoj'Ofioi.  The  idea  of  a  KXripovofiia  is  taken  up  and 
developed  in  N.  T.  from  O.  T.  and  Apocr.  (Ecclus,  Ps.  Sol., 
4  Ezr.).     It  is  also  prominent  in  Philo,  who  devotes  a  whole 


<04  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [VIII.18,1» 

treatise  to  the  question  Quit  nrum  divinarum  heres  sitf  (Mang.  I 
473  ff.).  Meaning  originally  (i)  the  simple  possession  of  the  Holj 
Land,  it  came  to  mean  (ii)  its  permanent  and  assured  possession 
(Ps.  XXV  [xxiv].  13;  xxxvi  [xxxvii].  9,  11  &c.) ;  hence  (iii) 
specially  the  secure  possession  won  by  the  Messiah  (Is.  Ix.  ai ; 
(xi.  7  ;  and  so  it  became  (iv)  a  symbol  of  all  Messianic  blessings 
(Matt.  V.  5 ;  xix.  29 ;  xxv.  34,  &c.).  Philo,  after  his  manner, 
makes  the  word  denote  the  bliss  of  the  soul  when  freed  from  the 
body. 

It  U  an  instance  of  the  onacconntable  ineqaalides  of  usage  that  wheieaa 
K\f]povo/uiy,  ttKrjpoyoftia  occur  almost  innumerable  times  in  LXX,  tc\i]por6itoi 
occurs  only  five  times  (once  in  Symmacbus) ;  in  N.  T.  there  is  much  greatci 
equality  {KKijpovo/jiuy  eighteen,  itKr)povo)ua  fourteen,  mkiipov6not  hfteen). 

9VYKXT)poK6|ioi.  Our  Lord  had  described  Himself  as  '  the  Heir ' 
in  the  parable  of  the  Wicked  Husbandmen  (Matt.  xxi.  38).  This 
would  show  that  the  idea  of  Kkrjpovofxia  received  its  full  Christian 
adaptation  directly  from  Him  (cf.  also  Matt  xxv.  34). 

ctircp  vufiirdcrxofici'.  St.  Paul  seems  here  to  be  reminding  his 
hearers  of  a  current  Christian  saying :  cf.  a  Tim.  iL  1 1  irtorA*  i 
XJyor,  E(  yap  avvatrtdavofjitp  koi  avCrjaofup^  vrroufvofiev  Koi  <rvfij3a(r(- 
Xtvvofitv.  This  is  another  instance  of  the  Biblical  conception  of 
Christ  as  the  Way  (His  Life  not  merely  an  example  for  ours,  but 
in  its  main  lines  presenting  a  fixed  type  or  law  to  which  the  lives 
of  Christians  must  conform);  cf.  p.  196  above,  and  Dr.  Hort't 
77ie  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Lift  there  referred  to.  For  rurc/>  see 
on  iii.  30. 

suppERnra  thb  path  to  olobt. 

VIII.  18-26.  What  though  the  path  to  that  glory  lies 
through  sufferi:rg  ?  The  suffering  and  the  glory  alike  are 
parts  of  a  great  cosntical  movetnent,  in  which  the  irrational 
creation  joins  with  man.  As  it  shared  the  results  of  his 
fall,  so  also  will  it  share  in  his  redemption.  Its  pangs  are 
pangs  of  a  new  birth  (w.  iS-aa). 

Like  t/ie  mute  creation,  we  Christians  too  wait  painfully 
for  our  deliverance.  Our  attitude  is  one  of  hope  and  not  of 
possession  (vv.  23-25). 

**  What  of  that  ?  For  the  sufferings  which  we  have  to  imdergo 
in  this  phase  of  our  career  I  count  not  worth  a  thought  in  view 
of  that  dazzling  splendour  which  will  one  day  break  through 
the  clouds  and  dawn  upon  us.  '^  For  the  sons  of  God  will  stand 
forth  revealed  in  the  glories  of  their  bright  inheritance.     And  for 


VIIL  18.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  ao^ 

that  consummarion  not  they  alone  but  the  whole  irrational  creation, 
both  animate  and  inanimate,  waits  with  eager  longing;  Hke 
spectators  straining  forward  over  the  ropes  to  catch  the  first 
glimpse  of  some  triumphal  pageant. 

"•The  future  and  not  the  present  must  satisfy  its  aspirations. 
For  ages  ago  Creation  was  condemned  to  have  its  energies  marred 
and  frustrated.  And  that  by  no  act  of  its  own  :  it  was  God  who 
fixed  this  doom  upon  it,  but  with  the  hope  "  that  as  it  had  been 
enthralled  to  death  and  decay  by  the  Fall  of  Man  so  too  the 
Creation  shall  share  in  the  free  and  glorious  existence  of  God's 
emancipated  children.  ^  It  is  like  the  pangs  of  a  woman  in  child- 
birth. This  universal  frame  feels  up  to  this  moment  the  throes  of 
travail — feels  them  in  every  part  and  cries  out  in  its  pain.  But 
where  there  is  travail,  there  must  needs  also  be  a  birth. 

""Our  own  experience  points  to  the  same  conclusion.  True 
that  in  those  workings  of  the  Spirit,  the  charismata  with  which  we 
are  endowed,  we  Christians  already  possess  a  foretaste  of  good 
things  to  come.  But  that  very  foretaste  makes  us  long — anxiously 
and  painfully  long — for  the  final  recognition  of  our  Sonship.  We 
desire  to  see  these  bodies  of  ours  delivered  from  the  evils  that 
beset  them  and  transfigured  into  glory. 

•*Hoj)e  is  the  Christian's  proper  attitude.  We  were  saved 
indeed,  the  groundwork  of  our  salvation  was  laid,  when  we  became 
Christians.  But  was  that  salvation  in  possession  or  in  prospect  ? 
Certainly  in  prospect.  Otherwise  there  would  be  no  room  for 
hope.  For  what  a  man  sees  already  in  his  hand  he  does  not  hope 
for  as  if  it  were  future.  "  But  in  our  case  we  do  not  see,  and  we 
do  hope;  therefore  we  also  wait  for  our  object  with  steadfast 
fortitude. 

18.  Xoyi^ofMu  ydEp.  At  the  end  of  the  last  paragraph  St  Paul 
has  been  led  to  speak  of  the  exalted  privileges  of  Christians  in- 
volved in  the  fact  that  they  are  sons  of  God.  The  thought  of  these 
privileges  suddenly  recalls  to  him  the  contrast  of  the  sufTerings 
through  which  they  are  passing.  And  after  his  manner  he  does 
not  let  go  this  idea  of  '  suffering '  but  works  it  into  his  main 
argument.  He  first  dismisses  the  thought  that  the  present  suffer- 
ing can  be  any  real  counter-weight  to  the  future  glory ;  and  then 
he  shows  that  not  only  is  it  not  this,  but  that  on  the  contrary  it 
actually  points  forward  to  that  glory.     It  does  this  on  the  grandest 


ACM  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [VIIL 18, 18. 

scale.  In  fact  it  is  nothing  short  of  an  universal  law  that  suffering 
marks  the  road  to  glory.  All  the  suflFering,  all  the  imperfection, 
all  the  unsatisfied  aspiration  and  longing  of  which  the  traces  are  so 
abundant  in  external  nature  as  well  as  in  man,  do  but  point  forward 
to  a  time  when  the  suffering  shall  cease,  the  imperfection  be  re- 
moved and  the  frustrated  aspirations  at  last  crowned  and  satisfied; 
and  this  time  coincides  with  the  glorious  consummation  which 
awaits  the  Christian. 

True  it  is  that  there  goes  up  as  it  were  an  universal  groan,  from 
creation,  from  ourselves,  from  the  Holy  Spirit  who  sympathizes 
with  us;  but  this  groaning  is  but  the  travail-pangs  of  the  new 
birth,  the  entrance  upon  their  glorified  condition  of  the  risen  sons 
of  God. 

Xoyilofiai :  here  in  its  strict  sense,  'I  calculate/  'weigh  mentally,' 
'  count  up  on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other.' 

a|ia  . . .  •jrp<Ss.  In  Plato,  Gorg.  p.  471  E,  we  have  ovS*v6f  i$i6s  »W» 
irpot  Tr}v  dXijdetaf :  SO  that  with  a  slight  ellipse  ovk  o^m  .  .  .  wpot  t^v 
do^av  will  =  '  not  worth  (considering)  in  comparison  with  the  glory.' 
Or  we  may  regard  this  as  a  mixture  of  two  constructions,  (i)  ovk 
a^ta  TTis  86ir]s,  \.  6.  '  not  an  equivalent  for  the  glory  ' ;  comp.  Prov. 
viii.  II  nav  8t  Tifuoy  ovk  n^tov  avrfis  (sc.  T^f  <ro(f)ias)  iariy,  and  (2) 
ov8fv6f  \6yov  a^ia  rrp6s  t^»'  86^av:  COmp.  Jer.  Zxiii.  28  tI  r6  aj(ypov 
npos  rhv  (rirov ; 

The  thought  ha*  a  near  parallel  in  4  Ezra  yii.  3ff.  Compare  {«.g.)  the 
following  (w.  ia-17):  Et  fcuti  sunt  introitus  huius  saeculi  angusti  tt 
doltntu  et  laboriosi,  pauci  autem  et  malt  et  peritulorum  pleni  et  labor* 
magna  opere  fulti ;  nam  maioris  taeculi  introittu  spatiosi  et  securi  et 
facientes  immortalitatit  fructum.  Si  ergo  non  ingredientes  ingretsi  fuertnt- 
que  vtvunt  angusta  et  vana  haec,  mm  poterunt  recipere  quae  tunt  repoiita  . . . 
iusti  autem  ferent  angusta  sperantts  spatiosa.  Compare  also  the  qaotations 
from  the  Talmud  in  DeliUsch  ad  lot.  The  question  is  asked,  What  is  the 
way  to  the  world  to  come  ?     And  the  answer  is,  Through  suffering. 

f&^XouaaK :  emphatic,  '  is  destined  to,'  '  is  certain  to.'  The 
position  of  the  word  is  the  same  as  in  Gal.  iii-  23,  and  serves  to 
point  the  contrast  to  rov  vvv  Katpov. 

h6iav :  the  heavenly  brightness  of  Christ's  appearing :  see  on 
iii.  23. 

els  i^fiias :  to  reach  and  include  us  in  its  radiance. 

19.  diTOKapaSoKia  :  cf.  Phil.  i.  20  Kara  ttjv  dnoKapafioKlav  ko)  iKirifta 
nov  :  the  verb  dnoKapaBoKuv  occurs  in  Aquila's  version  of  Ps.  xxxvii 
[xxxvi],  7,  and  the  subst.  frequently  in  Polyb.  and  Plutarch  (see 
Grm.-Thay.  s.  v.,  and  Ell.  Lft.  on  Phil.  i.  20).  A  highly  expressive 
word  '  to  strain  forward,'  lit.  *  await  \\  ilh  outstretched  head.'  This 
sense  is  still  further  strengthened  by  the  compound,  ano-  denoting 
diversion  from  other  things  and  concentration  on  a  single  object. 

This  passage  (especially  yt.   17,  as)  played  a  considerable  part  in  tbf 
qrstem  of  Basiiides,  as  des^jibed  in  Hippol.  Jie/.  Omn,  Hatr.  viL  35-27. 


VJIl.  18.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  90J 

rf)s  KTiaews:  see  on  i.  ao.  Here  the  sense  is  given  by  the 
context ;  17  kt!«hs  is  set  in  contrast  with  the  '  sons  of  God/  and 
from  the  allusion  to  the  Fall  which  follows  evidently  refers  to  Gen. 
iii.  17,  18  'Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake  . . .  thorns  also  and 
thistles  shall  it  bring  forth  to  thee.'  The  commentators  however 
are  not  wrong  in  making  the  word  include  here  the  whole  irrational 
creation.  The  poetic  and  penetrating  imagination  of  St.  Paul 
sees  in  the  marks  of  imperfection  on  the  face  of  nature,  in  the 
signs  at  once  of  high  capacities  and  poor  achievement,  the  visible 
and  audible  expression  of  a  sense  of  something  wanting  which  will 
one  day  be  supplied. 

Oltr.  and  some  others  argue  strenuously,  but  in  vain,  for  giving 
to  KTia-is,  throughout  the  whole  of  this  passage,  the  sense  not  of  the 
world  of  nature,  but  of  the  world  of  man  (similarly  Orig.).  He 
tries  to  get  rid  of  the  poetic  personification  of  nature  and  to 
dissociate  St.  Paul  from  Jewish  doctrine  as  to  the  origin  of  death 
and  decay  in  nature,  and  as  to  its  removal  at  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.  But  (i)  there  is  no  sufficient  warrant  for  limiting  ktio-h 
to  humanity;  (ii)  it  is  necessary  to  deny  the  sufficiently  obvious 
reference  to  Gen.  iii.  17-19  (where,  though  the  'ground'  or  'soil' 
only  is  mentioned,  it  is  the  earth's  siulace  as  the  seed-plot  of  life)  ; 
(iii)  the  Apostle  is  ra'iier  taken  out  of  tlie  mental  surroundings 
in  which  he  moved  than  placed  in  them:  see  below  on  'The 
Renovation  of  Nature.' 

The  ancients  generallj  Uke  the  passage  as  above  (fi  Krlait  1)  iKoyos 
expressly  Enthym.-Zig ).  Orig.-lat.,  as  expressly,  has  crtaturam  utpott 
ratumabiUm ;  but  be  is  qnite  at  fault,  making  rp  iMTvu6TtiTt  >-  '  the  body.' 
Chrys.  and  Euthym.-Zig.  call  attention  to  die  personification  of  Nature, 
which  they  compare  to  that  in  the  Psalms  and  Prophets,  while  Diodoms  of 
Tarsus  refers  the  expressions  implying  life  rather  to  the  Powers  (Svfd/xctt) 
which  preside  over  inanimate  nature  and  from  which  it  takes  its  forms.  The 
sense  commonly  given  to  /tarcuorifri  is  »  f9opa. 

i^¥  d-iroKdXuiliii'  TUK  vltav  toC  Gcov.  The  same  word  diroKciXv^ic  is 
applied  to  the  Second  Coming  of  the  Messiah  (which  is  also  an 
fni(pca>tia  2  Thess.  ii.  8)  and  to  that  of  the  redeemed  who  accompany 
Him :  their  new  existence  will  not  be  like  the  present,  but  will  be 
in  '  glory  *  {d6^)  both  reflected  and  imparted.  This  revealing  of 
die  sons  of  God  will  be  the  signal  for  the  great  transformation. 

The  Jewish  writings  use  similar  language.  To  them  also  the  appearing  of 
the  Messiah  is  an  diroKi\vfis :  4  Ezra  xiii.  3a  */  trit  cumJUnt  kaec,  »t  ctm- 
Hngent  signa  qua*  ante  osUndi  tibi  tt  tunc  revelabitur  filius  meus  qutm 
mdisti  ut  virum  '"c^.^denttm ;  Apoc.  Bar.  xxxix.  7  et  erit,  cum  appropinqua- 
writ  te"i^%u  finis  eius  ut  cadat,  tunc  revelabitur principatus  Messicu  met  qui 
similis  est  fonti  et  viti,  et  oum  revelatus  fuerit  eradicabit  multitudinem  earn- 
gregationis  eius  (the  Latin  of  this  book,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  Ceriani's 
version  from  the  Syriac,  and  not  ancient  like  that  of  4  Ezra).  The  object  <rf 
the  Messiah's  appearing  is  the  same  as  with  St.  Paul,  to  deliver  creatioa 
from  its  ills :  4  Ecra  xiiL  a6,  39  ifu  tst  qu4m  conservat  AUissimus  mtUHt 


toS  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS      [VIII.  18-2^ 

ttmporifms  ftti  p*r  ttmttipsum  liberabit  creaturam  suam  tt  ipse  disponei 
qui  tUrelictt  sunt .  .  .  tcct  dies  vtniunt,  quando  incipiet  Altissimui  liberart 
COS  qui  super  terram  sunt:  Apoc.  Bar.  xxiii.  6  quando  futurum  est  ut  Fortis 
innovet  creaturam  suam  (-  4  Exra  vii.  75  [Bensly]  donee  veniant  ttmpora 
ilia,  in  quibus  incipies  creaturam  rtnovare).  The  Messiah  does  not  come 
aloue  :  4  Ezra  xiii.  -  r  non  poterit  quisque  super  terram  vidert  Jilium  meum 
vel  eos  qui  cum  eo  sunt  nisi  in  tempore  diet.  He  collects  round  Him 
a  double  multitude,  consisting  partly  of  the  ten  tribes  who  had  been  carried 
away  into  captivity,  and  partly  of  thoie  who  were  left  in  the  Holy  Land 
(ibid.  w.  I  a,  39  ff.,  48  f.). 

dircKS^XC'''^  •  another  strong  compound,  where  an»-  contains  the 

same  idea  of  '  comeniraled  waiting  '  as  in  anoKapa^oKia  above. 

20.  TTJ .  . .  fiaTai6rr|Ti :  (xaraioTrfs  fiaTautrt'iroiv  is  the  refrain  of  the 
Book  of  Ecclesiastes  (Eccl.  i.  a,  &c. ;  cf.  Ps.  xxxix.  5,  11  [xxxviii.  6, 
12]  cxliv  [cxliii].  4) ;  that  is  ftdraiou  which  is  '  without  result '  (jmttjv), 
'  ineffective,'  '  which  does  not  reach  its  end ' — the  opposite  of 
TfXfios  :  the  word  is  therefore  appropriately  used  of  the  disappointing 
character  of  present  existence,  which  nowhere  reaches  the  perfection 
of  which  it  is  capable. 

uircTdyT) :  by  the  Divine  sentence  which  followed  the  Fall  (Gen. 
ii.  17-19). 

DUX  iKoucra :  not  through  its  own  fault,  but  through  the  fault  of 
man,  i.  e.  the  Fall 

SiA  Toi'  fiiroTd^arro :  '  by  reason  of  Him  who  subjected  it,'  i.e.  not 
man  in  general  (Lips.) ;  nor  Adam  (Chrys.  a/.) ;  nor  the  Devil 
(Go.\  but  (with  most  commentators,  ancient  as  well  as  modem) 
God,  by  the  sentence  pronounced  after  the  Fall  It  is  no  argument 
against  this  reference  that  the  use  of  fita  with  ace.  in  such  a  con- 
nexion is  rather  unusual  (so  Lips.). 

eir*  AirtSi  qualifies  \mtTayr\.  Creation  was  made  subject  to 
vanity — not  simply  and  absolutely  and  there  an  end,  but  *  in  hope 
that,'  &c.  Whatever  the  defects  and  degradation  of  nature,  it  was 
at  least  left  with  the  hope  of  rising  to  the  ideal  intended  for  it. 

21.  oTi.  The  majority  of  recent  commentators  make  ort  (*=  'that*) 
define  the  substance  of  the  hope  just  mentioned,  and  not  (as  '  be- 
cause ')  give  a  reason  for  it.  The  meaning  in  any  case  is  much 
the  same,  but  this  is  the  simpler  way  to  arrive  at  it. 

Kal  auTT)  ^  KTiais :  not  only  Christians  but  even  the  mute  creation 
with  them. 

diro  Tjjs  SouXcia^  rfjs  ^9opas.  dotAft'ay  corresponds  to  wrfTayFj,  the 
state  of  subjection  or  thraldom  to  dissoluticn  and  decay.  The 
opposite  10  this  is  the  full  and  free  development  of  all  the  powers 
which  attends  the  state  of  ho^a.  '  Glorious  liberty '  is  a  f)Oor 
translation  and  does  not  express  the  idea :  5o|a,  '  the  glorified  state,' 
is  the  leading  fact,  not  a  subortlinate  fact,  and  tXevdepia  is  its 
rharacteristic,  '  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God.' 

22.  ot8a)i,cK  yiJ^P  introduces  a  fact  of  common  knowledge  (thou^ 


VIII.  22-24.]  LIFE  IN   THE  SPIRIT  I09 

the  apprehension  of  it  may  not  have  been  sc  common  as  he 
assumes)  to  which  the  Apostle  appeals. 

auarevdlii  Kal  auKuSirci.  It  seems  on  the  whole  best  to  take  the 
irt'j^  in  both  instances  as  =  'together,'  i.e.  in  all  the  parts  of  which 
creation   is  made   up   (so.  Theod.-Mops.  expressly:    ^oiXerai   8i 

tlnttv  OTt  <rvfji.(f)oi)vcos  (WtStiKPvrai  rovro  Traaa  ij  KTiVts"  ipa  to  napa  irdarjs 
t6  airi  yivtaOai  o/xoit»r,  naideva-r)  tovtovs  t^v  irpos  dnavras  Koivaviaf 
vlpe'ia-Bai  rj}  twv  XvnTjpay  KapTtpia).  Oltr.  gets  OUt  of  it  the  sense  of 
'inwardly'  (=  (v  (avToU),  which  it  will  not  bear:  Fri.  Lips,  and 
others,  after  Euthym.-Zig.  make  it  —  '  with  men '  or  '  with  the 
children  of  God ' ;  but  if  these  had  been  pointed  to,  there  would 
not  be  so  clear  an  opposition  as  there  is  at  the  beginning  of  the 
next  verse  (ou  p6vov  8«,  aX\a  xai  ainoi).  The  two  verses  must  be 
kept  apart. 

23.  00  iLovQv  %4.  Not  only  does  nature  groan,  but  we  Christians 
also  groan  :  our  very  privileges  make  us  long  for  something  more. 

TTjK  dirapxV  TOO  flk'euiAaTos:  'the  first-fruits,  or  first  instalment 
of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.'  St.  Paul  evidently  means  all  the 
phenomena  of  that  great  outpouring  which  was  specially  charac- 
teristic of  the  Apostolic  Age  from  the  Day  of  Pentecost  onwards, 
the  varied  charismata  bestowed  upon  the  first  Christians  (i  Cor. 
xii.  &c.),  but  including  also  the  moral  and  spiritual  gifts  which  were 
more  permanent  (Gal.  v.  2a  f.).  The  possession  of  these  gifts 
served  to  quicken  the  sense  of  the  yet  greater  gifts  that  were  to 
come.  Foremost  among  them  was  to  be  the  transforming  of  the 
earthly  or  '  psychical '  body  into  a  spiritual  body  (i  Cor.  xv.  44  ff.). 
Sl  Paul  calls  this  a  '  deliverance,'  i.  e.  a  deliverance  from  the  '  ills 
that  flesh  is  heir  to' :  for  diroXvrpoxris  see  on  iii.  34. 

JxovTfs  li|Ji«is :  fipitit  is  placed  here  by  K  A  C  5.  47.  80,  alio  by  Tiaclt 
RV.  and  (in  brackets)  by  WH. 

uioOtviav:  see  on  ver.  15  above.  Flere  vlod.  =  the  manifested, 
realized,  act  of  adoption — its  public  promulgation. 

24.  T^  Y^P  ^^TTiSi  cawOtjfiei'.  The  older  commentators  for  the 
most  part  (not  however  Luther  Beng.  Fri.)  took  the  dat.  here  as 
dative  of  the  instrument,  '  by  hope  were  we  saved.'  Most  moderns 
(including  Gif  Go.  Oltr.  Mou.  Lid.)  take  it  as  dat.  modi,  (W,  hope 
were  we  saved ; '  the  main  ground  being  that  it  is  more  in  "^tccord- 
ance  with  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul  to  say  that  we  were  saved  dy 
faith,  or  from  another  point  of  view — looking  at  salvation  from  the 
side  of  God — by  grace  (both  terms  are  found  in  Eph.  ii.  8)  than  by 
hope.  This  seems  preferable.  Some  have  held  that  Hope  is  here 
only  an  aspect  of  Faith :  and  it  is  quite  true  that  the  definition  of 
Faith  in  Heb.  xi.  I  («o-Tt  hi  m'<rr»r  kXrcKl^op.iviav  vnoa-raais,  npayparii>t 
tKtyyos  ov  ^Xenopivcop),  makes  it  practically  equivalent  to  Hope.  Bui 
that  is  just  one  of  the  points  of  distinction  between  Ep.  to  Heb 


aiO  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [VIII.  S4,  Mi 

and  St.  Paul.  In  Heb.  Faith  is  used  somewhat  vaguely  of  belid 
in  God  and  in  the  fulfilment  of  His  promises.  In  St.  Paul  it  is  fai 
more  often  Faith  in  Christ,  the  first  act  of  accepting  Christianity 
(sec  p.  33  above).  This  belongs  essentially  to  the  past,  and  to  the 
present  as  growing  direcily  out  of  the  past ;  but  when  St,  Paul 
comes  to  speak  of  the  future  he  uses  another  term,  Awt'r.  No 
doubt  when  we  come  to  trace  this  to  its  origin  it  has  its  root  in  the 
strong  conviction  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  and  its  consequences ; 
but  the  two  terms  are  not  therefore  identical,  and  it  is  best  to 
keep  them  distinct. 

Some  recent  Germans  (Holsten,  Weiss,  Lips.)  take  the  dat.  as 
daiivMS  commodi,  ^for  hope  were  we  saved.'  But  this  is  less 
natural.  To  obtain  this  sense  we  should  have  to  personify  Hope 
more  strongly  than  the  context  will  bear.  Besides  Hope  is  an 
attribute  or  characteristic  of  the  Christian  life,  but  not  its  end. 

(kn\%  8c  pXcTrofi^KT) :  fXTrt's  here  =  '  the  thing  hoped  for,'  just  as 
KTWii  =  '  the  thing  created ' ;  a  very  common  usage. 

t  ydp  (3X«Tr»,  t{«  A.irC5« ;  Thii  terse  reading  is  fonnd  only  in  B  47  wtarg^ 
which  adds  to  iraAativ  owtcw  ?x*' ^  it  is  adopted  by  RV.  text,  WH.  ttxt. 
Text.  Recept.  hag  '\h  7<ip  &\kitu  tij]  t/  /rat  [tXTri'^fi],  of  which  t»  alone  ia 
found  in  Western  authorities  (D  F  G,  Vnlg.  Pesh.  a/.),  and  «o«  alone  in 
K*47*.  Both  RV.  and  WII.  give  a  place  in  the  margin  to  ri  not  iXwi^u 
and  ri  teal  iro/jifrti  [vwofiivti  with  K*  A  47  aiarg^."]. 

26.  The  point  of  these  two  verses  is  that  the  attitude  of  hope, 
so  distinctive  of  the  Christian,  implies  that  there  is  more  in  store 
for  him  than  anything  that  is  his  already, 

81*  6irofiOKi)s :  constancy  and  fortitude  under  persecution,  Stc, 
pointing  back  to  the  '  sufferings '  of  ver.  18  (cf.  on  ii.  7  ;  v.  4 ;  and 
for  the  use  of  d<i  iL  a  7). 


TA^  Renovation  of  Naturt. 

We  have  already  quoted  illustrations  of  St.  Paul's  langnage  from 
some  of  the  Jewish  writings  which  are  nearest  to  his  own  in  point 
of  time.  They  are  only  samples  of  the  great  mass  of  Jewish 
literature.  To  all  of  it  this  idea  of  a  renovation  of  Nature,  the 
creation  of  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth  is  common,  as  part  of  the 
Messianic  expectation  which  was  fulfilled  unawares  to  many  of 
those  by  whom  it  was  entertained.  The  days  of  the  Messiah  were 
to  be  the  'seasons  of  refreshing,'  the  'times  of  restoration  of  all 
things,'  which  were  to  come  from  the  face  of  the  Lord  (Acts  iii.  19, 
21).  The  expectation  had  its  roots  in  the  O.  T.,  especially  in 
those  chapters  of  the  Second  Part  of  Isaiah  in  which  the  approach- 
ing Return  from  Captivity  opens  up  to  the  prophet  such  splendid 
visions  for  the  future.     The  one  section  Jg.  Ixv.  i7-a5  might  well 


mi.  18-25.]  LIFE   IN  THE  SPIRIT  111 

be  held  to  warrant  most  of  the  statements  in  the  Apocrypha  and 
Talmud. 

The  idea  of  the  '  new  heavens  and  new  earth '  is  based  directly 
upon  Is,  Ixv.  17,  and  is  found  clearly  stated  in  the  Book  of  Enoch, 
xlv.  4  f.  *  I  will  transform  the  heaven  and  make  it  an  eternal 
blessing  and  light.  And  I  will  transform  the  earth  and  make  it 
a  blessing  and  cause  Mine  elect  ones  to  dwell  upon  it '  (where  see 
Charles'  note).  There  is  also  an  application  of  Ps.  cxiv.  4,  with 
an  added  feature  which  illustrates  exactly  St.  Paul's  anoKokv^is  tuv 
viS>p  Tov  Gtoi  I  *  In  those  days  will  the  mountains  leap  like  rams 
and  the  hills  will  skip  like  lambs  satisfied  with  milk,  and  they  will 
all  become  angels  in  heaven.  Their  faces  will  be  lighted  up 
with  joy,  because  in  those  days  the  Elect  One  has  appeared,  and  the 
earth  will  rejoice  and  the  righteous  will  dwell  upon  it,  and  the  elect 
will  go  to  and  fro  upon  it'  {Enoch  li.  4f).  We  have  given 
parallels  enough  from  4  Ezra  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  and 
there  is  much  in  the  Talmud  to  the  same  effect  (cf  Weber,  Alisyn. 
Theol.  p.  380  ff. ;  Schflrer,  Neutest.  Zeitgesch.  iL  453  ff.,  458  f. ; 
Edersheim,  Lt/t  and  Times,  ftc.  ii.  438). 

It  is  not  surprising  to  find  the  poetry  of  the  prophetic  writings 
hardened  into  fact  by  Jewish  literalism ;  but  it  is  strange  when  the 
products  of  this  mode  of  interpretation  are  attributed  to  our  Lord 
Himself  on  authority  no  less  ancient  than  that  of  Papias  of  Hiera- 
polis,  professedly  drawing  firom  the  tradition  of  St.  John,  Yet 
Irenaeus  {Adv.  Haer.  V.  xxxiii.  3)  quotes  in  such  terms  the  follow- 
ing :  '  The  days  will  come,  in  which  vines  shall  grow,  each  having 
ten  thousand  shoots  and  on  each  shoot  ten  thousand  branc^ies,  and 
on  each  branch  again  ten  thousand  twigs,  and  on  each  twig  ten 
thousand  clusters,  and  on  each  cluster  ten  thousand  grapes,  and 
each  grape  when  pressed  shall  yield  five  and  twenty  measures  of 
wine .  .  .  Likewise  also  a  grain  of  wheat  shall  produce  ten  thousand 
heads,  and  every  head  shall  have  ten  thousand  grains,  and  every 
grain  ttn  pounds  of  fine  flour,  bright  and  clean;  and  the  other 
fruits,  seeds  and  the  grass  shall  produce  in  similar  proportions,  and 
all  the  animals  using  these  fruits  which  are  products  of  the  soil, 
shall  become  in  their  turn  peaceable  and  harmonious.'  It  happens 
that  this  saying,  or  at  least  part  of  it,  is  actually  extant  in  Apoc. 
Bar.  xxlx.  5  (cf.  Orac.  Sibyll.  iii.  620-623,  744  ff.),  so  that  it 
clearly  comes  from  some  Jewish  source.  In  view  of  an  instance 
like  this  it  seems  possible  that  even  in  the  N,  T.  our  Lord's  words 
may  have  been  defined  in  a  sense  which  was  not  exactly  that 
originally  intended  owing  to  the  current  expectation  which  the  dis- 
ciples largely  shared. 

And  yet  on  the  whole,  even  if  this  expectation  was  by  the  Jews 
to  some  extent  literalized  and  materialized,  some  of  its  essential 
features  were  preserved.    Corresponding  to  the  new  abode  pre- 


Alt  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [VIII.  26,  aTs 

pared  for  h  there  was  to  be  a  renewed  humanity:  and  that  not 
only  in  a  physical  sense  based  on  Is.  xxxv.  5  f.  ('  Then  the  eyes  of 
the  blind  shall  be  opened,  and  the  ears  of  the  deaf  shall  be  un- 
stopped,' &c.),  but  also  in  a  moral  sense ;  the  root  of  evil  was  to  be 
plucked  out  of  the  hearts  of  men  and  a  new  heart  was  to  be  im- 
planted in  them :  the  Spirit  of  God  was  to  rest  upon  them  (Weber, 
Allsyn.  Theol.  p.  382).  There  was  to  be  no  unrighteousness  in 
their  midst,  for  they  were  all  to  be  holy  {Ps.  Sol.  xvii.  a 8  f.,  36, 
&c.).  The  Messiah  was  to  rule  over  the  nations,  but  not  merely  by 
force ;  Israel  was  to  be  a  true  light  to  the  Gentiles  (Schttrer,  op.  lii. 
p.  456). 

If  we  compare  these  Jewish  beliefs  with  what  we  find  here  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  there  are  two  ways  in  which  the  superiority 
of  the  Apostle  is  most  striking,  (i)  There  runs  through  his  words 
an  intense  sympathy  with  nature  in  and  for  itself.  He  is  one  of 
those  (like  St.  Francis  of  Assisi)  to  whom  it  is  given  to  read  as  it 
were  the  thoughts  of  plants  and  animals.  He  seems  to  lay  his  ear 
to  the  earth  and  the  confused  murmur  which  he  hears  has  a  meaning 
for  him  :  it  is  creation's  yearning  for  that  happier  state  intended  for 
it  and  of  which  it  has  been  defrauded.  (2 )  The  main  idea  is  not, 
as  it  is  so  apt  to  be  with  the  Rabbinical  writers,  the  mere  glorifica- 
tion of  Israel  By  them  the  Gentiles  are  differently  treated. 
Sometimes  it  is  their  boast  that  the  Holy  Land  will  be  reserved 
exclusively  for  Israel :  '  the  sojourner  and  the  stranger  shall  dwell 
with  them  no  more'  {Px.  Sol.  xvii.  31).  The  only  place  for  the 
Gentiles  is  '  to  serve  him  beneath  the  yoke  '  {ibid.  ver.  32).  The 
vision  of  the  Gentiles  streaming  to  Jerusalem  as  a  centre  of  religion 
is  exceptional,  as  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  is  also  in  O.  T. 
Prophecy.  On  the  other  hand,  with  St.  Paul  the  movement  is 
truly  cosmic.  The  '  sons  of  God '  are  not  selected  for  their  own 
sakes  alone,  but  their  redemption  means  the  redemption  of  a  world 
of  being  besides  themselves. 


THE  ASSISTANCE  OP  THE  SPIRIT. 

Vni.  ae,  av.  MeanwhiU  the  Holy  Spirit  itself  assists  m 

our  prayers. 

"Nor  are  we  alone  in  our  struggles.  The  Holy  Spirit  sup- 
ports our  helplessness.  Left  to  ourselves  we  do  not  know  what 
prayers  to  offer  or  how  to  offer  them.  But  in  those  inarticulate 
groans  which  rise  from  the  depths  of  our  being,  we  recognize  the 
voice  of  none  other  than  the  Holy  Spirit     He  makes  intercession  , 


VIIL  26.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  aij 

and  His  intercession  is  sure  to  be  answered.  "For  God  Who 
searches  the  inmost  recesses  of  the  heart  can  mterpret  His  own 
Spirit's  meaning.  He  knows  that  His  own  Will  regulates  Its 
petitions,  and  that  they  are  offered  for  men  dedicated  to  His  service. 

26.  AaauTws.  As  we  groan,  so  also  does  the  Holy  Spirit  groan 
with  us,  putting  a  meaning  into  our  aspirations  which  they  would 
not  have  of  themselves.  All  alike  converges  upon  that  'Divine 
event,  to  which  the  whole  creation  moves.'  This  view  of  the 
connexion  (Go.,  Weiss,  Lips.),  which  weaves  in  this  verse  with 
the  broad  course  of  the  Apostle's  argument,  seems  on  the  whole 
better  than  that  which  attaches  it  more  closely  to  the  words  im- 
mediately preceding,  '  as  hope  sustains  us  so  also  does  the  Spirit 
sustain  us '  (Mey.  Oltr.  Gif.  Va.  Mou.). 

(ruKamXaiiPd^cTai :  avTt^afi^dvfo-dai  = '  to  take  hold  of  at  the 
side  {ami),  so  as  to  support  ;  and  this  sense  is  further  strength- 
ened by  the  idea  of  association  contained  in  aw-.  The  same 
compound  occurs  in  LXX  of  Ps.  Ixxxviii  [Ixxxix].  a  a,  and  in 
Luke  X.  40. 

Tjj  daOcKciiji :  decisively  attested  for  rait  aadtpuait.  On  the  way  in 
which  we  are  taking  the  verse  the  reference  will  be  to  the  vague- 
ness and  defectiveness  of  our  prayers ;  on  the  other  view  to  our 
weakness  under  suflfering  implied  in  di*  vTroftovfjs.  But  as  imonovii 
suggests  rather  a  certain  amount  of  victorious  resistance,  this  appli- 
cation of  atrdivfia  seems  less  appropriate. 

rh  Ydp  Ti  irpoo-cu^ufjieOa.  The  art,  makes  the  whole  clause  object 
of  oibafuv.  Gif.  notes  that  this  construction  is  characteristic  of 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Luke  (in  the  latter  ten  times ;  in  the  former  Rom. 
xiii.  9;  Gal.  v.  14;  Eph.  iv.  9;  i  Thess.  iv.  i).  W  npotrtvi.  is 
strictly  rather,  '  What  we  ought  to  pray '  than  '  what  we  ought  to 
pray  for,'  i.  e.  '  how  we  are  to  word  our  prayers,'  not  *  what  we  are 
to  choose  as  the  objects  of  prayer.'  But  as  the  object  determines 
the  nature  of  the  prayer,  in  the  end  the  meaning  is  much  the 
same. 

naQh  Set.  It  is  perhaps  ft  refinement  to  take  this  as  ==  '  accord- 
ing to,  in  proportion  to,  our  need '  (Mey.-W.  Gif.) ;  which  brings  out 
the  proper  force  of  ita06  (cf.  Baruch  L  6  v.  1.)  at  the  cost  of  putting 
a  sense  upon  del  which  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.,  where 
it  always  denotes  obligation  or  objective  necessity.  Those  of  the 
Fathers  who  show  how  they  took  it  make  Kad6  J«  =  riva  Tp6Trov 
iti  vpoatv$.,  which  also  answers  well  to  Kara  eUp  in  the  next 
verse. 

iTr«p*vrvY)(dvu :  imvyxdvtt  means  originally  *  to  fall  in  with,'  and 
hence  '  to  accost  with  entreaty,'  and  so  simply  '  to  entreat ' ;  in  this 
sense  it  is  not  uncommon  and  occurs  twice  in  this  Epistle  (viii.  34 ; 
XL  «V     The  verse  contains  a  statement  which  the  unready  oi 


114  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VIII.  26   28. 

speech  may  well  lay  to  heart,  that  all  prayer  need  not  be  formu. 
lated,  but  that  the  most  inarticulate  desires  (springing  from  a  right 
motive)  may  have  a  shape  and  a  value  given  to  them  beyond 
anything  that  is  present  and  definable  to  the  consciousnesg.  This 
verse  and  the  next  go  to  show  that  St.  Paul  regarded  the  action  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  as  personal,  and  as  disiinct  from  the  action  of  the 
Father.  The  language  of  the  Creeds  aims  at  taking  account  of 
these  expressions,  which  agree  fully  with  the  triple  formula  of 
2  Cor.  xiii.  14;  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Oltr.  however  makes  to  nvevfia  in 
both  verses  =  '  the  human  spirit,'  against  the  natural  sense  of 
tmeptvTvyx^^*^  ^^^  ^^*P  <i')""»'i  which  place  the  object  of  intercession 
outside  the  Spirit  itself,  and  against  Kara  etop,  which  would  be  by 
no  means  always  true  of  the  human  spirit. 

vwrpevTvyxaytt  it  dedsively  attested  (K*  A  B  D  F  G  See.).  Text  Reeept 
has  the  easier  ivrtrfx^''**  *"'^P  i);i«»'. 

27.  8ti.    Are  we  to  translate  this  '  because '  (Weiss  Go.  Gif.  Va.) 

or  '  that '  (Mey.  Oltr.  Lips.  Mou.)  ?  Probably  the  latter ;  for  if  we 
take  on  as  assigning  a  reason  for  <u5«  ri  t6  <f)p6vTffia,  the  reason  would 
not  be  adequate :  God  would  still  '  know '  the  mind,  or  intention, 
of  the  Spirit  even  if  we  could  conceive  it  as  not  Kara  e*6v  and 
not  inrip  dyicov.  It  seems  best  therefore  to  make  on  describe  the 
nature  of  the  Spirit's  intercession. 

Kard  Q€6v  :=  Kara  to  diXrjpa  tov  6rov :   cf.  9  Cor.  vii.  9— 1 1. 

The  Jews  had  a  strong  belief  in  the  value  of  the  intercessory  prayer  «l 
their  great  saints,  such  as  Moses  {Ass.  Mays.  zi.  11,  17;  xii.  6),  Jeremiah 
\Apoc.  Bar.  ii.  3  :  cf.  Weber,  p.  387  fi.  Bat  thej  have  nothing  lik«  the 
teaching  of  these  verses 


THE  ASCENDIWO  PBOCESS  OP  SAIiVATIOW. 

VIII.  28-80.  With  what  a  chain  of  Providential  cart 
does  God  accompany  the  course  of  His  chosen  /  In  eternity^ 
the  plan  laid  and  their  part  in  it  foreseen  ;  in  time,  first 
their  call,  then  their  acquittal,  and  finally  their  reception 
into  glory. 

•'Yet  another  ground  of  confidence.  The  Christian  knows  that 
all  things  (including  his  sufferings)  can  have  but  one  result,  and 
that  a  good  one,  for  those  who  love  God  and  respond  to  the  call 
which  in  the  pursuance  of  His  purpose  He  addresses  to  them. 
^  Think  what  a  long  perspective  of  Divine  care  and  protection  lies 
before  them  !  First,  in  eternity,  God  marked  them  for  His  own, 
as  special  objects  of  His  care  and  instiuments  of  His  ptupose, 


VIII.  28.]  UFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  215 

Then,  in  the  lame  eternity,  He  planned  that  they  snould  share  in 
the  glorified  celestial  being  of  the  Incarnate  Son — in  order  that 
He,  as  Eldest  Bom,  might  gather  round  Him  a  whole  family  of 
the  redeemed.  *•  Then  in  due  course,  to  those  for  whom  He  had 
in  store  this  destiny  He  addressed  the  call  to  leave  their  worldly 
lives  and  devote  themselves  to  His  service.  And  when  they 
obeyed  that  call  He  treated  them  as  righteous  men,  with  their 
past  no  longer  reckoned  against  them.  And  so  accounted  righteous 
He  let  them  participate  (partially  now  as  they  will  do  more  com- 
pletely hereafter)  in  His  Divine  perfection. 

28.  olSai^cr  U  passes  on  to  another  ground  for  looking  con- 
fidently to  the  future.  The  Christian's  career  mus/  have  a  good 
ending,  because  at  every  step  in  it  he  is  in  the  hands  of  God  and  is 
carrying  out  the  Divine  purpose. 

irdrra  vuvfpyel :  a  small  but  important  group  of  authorities,  A  B, 
Orig.  2/6  or  a/7  (cf.  Boh.  Sah.  Aeth.),  adds  6  e«Jr ;  and  the  inser- 
tion lay  so  much  less  near  at  hand  than  the  omishiion  that  it  must 
be  allowed  to  have  the  greater  appearance  of  originality.  With 
this  reading  avvtpytl  must  be  taken  transitively,  '  causes  all  things 
to  work.' 

The  Bohairic  Venion,  tranilated  literally  and  preserving  the  idioms,  is '  Bot 
we  know  that  those  who  love  God,  He  habitually  works  with  them  in  every 

food  thing,  those  whom  He  has  called  according  to  His  purpose.'  The  Sahidic 
'ersion  (as  edited  by  Am^linean  in  ZtUsckrift  fur  Atgypt.  Spracht,  18S7) 
Is  in  part  defective  but  certainly  repeats  8e<ir :  '  But  we  know  that  those  who 
love  God,  God  .  . .  them  in  every  good  thing,'  &c  From  this  we  gather 
that  the  Version  of  Upper  Egypt  inserted  b  ©tor,  and  that  the  Version  o( 
Lower  Egypt  omitted  it  bot  interpreted  <rw€p7«r  transitively  as  if  it  were 
present.  It  would  almost  seem  as  if  there  was  aa  exegetical  tradition  which 
took  the  word  in  this  way.  It  is  true  that  the  extract  from  Origan's  Com- 
mentary in  the  Philotalia  (ed.  Robinson,  p.  326  fif.)  not  only  distinctly  and 
repeatedly  presents  the  common  reading  but  also  in  one  place  (p.  229)  clearly 
has  the  common  interpretation.  But  Chrysostom  {ad  Ice.)  argues  at  some 
length  as  if  he  were  taking  av  '^pytt  transitively  with  6  @(6s  for  subject. 
Similarly  Gennadius  (in  Cramer's  Catena),  also  Theodoret  and  Theodoras 
Monachus  (preserved  in  the  Cattna).  It  would  perhaps  be  too  much  to 
claim  all  these  writers  as  witnesses  to  the  reading  avvtpyti  i  Btos,  but  they 
may  point  to  a  tradition  which  had  its  origin  in  that  reading  and  survived  it. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  possible  that  the  reading  may  have  grown  out  of  the 
interpretation. 

For  the  use  of  awtpyt  there  arc  two  rather  close  parallels  in  Test.  XII 
Patr. :  Issach.  3  i  Ocdj  owtfrfu  t$  aTtXorijri  fiov,  and  Gad  4  ri  yap  vvtviM 
rev  fuaovs  .  .  .  avrtpyti  r^  ^aravq.  if  vaaiv  tts  Ouvarov  tSiv  afOpanruv  to  5i 
wvfvfia  rrjt  iqfawtft  4r  fUucpo6vfii<f  ffyrtpyti  r^  vofi^  rofi  9cov  tit  aotri^piav 

Tois  Hard  vp69c<nr  rXt|tois  ouvtr.  With  this  clause  St.  Paul  in- 
troduces a  string  of  what  may  be  called  the  technical  terms  of  hia 


11 6  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [VIII.  2b 

theology,  marking  the  succession  of  stages  into  which  he  divides 
the  normal  course  of  a  Christian  life — all  being  considered  not 
from  the  side  of  human  choice  and  volition,  but  from  the  side  ol 
Divine  care  and  ordering.  This  is  summed  up  at  the  outset  in  the 
phrase  Kara  np6e*«Ttv,  ihe  comprehensive  plan  or  design  in  accord- 
ance with  which  God  directs  the  destinies  of  men.  There  can  be 
no  question  that  St.  Paul  fully  recognizes  the  freedom  of  the  human 
will.  The  large  part  which  exhortation  plays  in  his  letters  is  con- 
clusive proof  of  this.  But  whatever  the  extent  of  human  freedom 
there  must  be  behind  it  the  Divine  Sovereignty.  It  is  the  practice 
of  St.  Paul  to  state  alternately  the  one  and  the  other  without 
attempting  an  exact  delimitation  between  them.  And  what  he  has 
not  done  we  are  not  likely  to  succeed  in  doing.  In  the  passage 
before  us  the  Divine  Sovereignty  is  in  view,  not  on  its  terrible  but 
on  its  gracious  side.  It  is  the  proof  how  '  God  worketh  all  things 
for  good  to  those  who  love  Him.'  We  cannot  insist  too  strongly 
upon  this ;  but  when  we  leave  the  plain  declarations  of  the  Apostle 
and  begin  to  draw  speculative  inferences  on  the  right  hand  or  on 
the  left  we  may  easily  fall  into  cross  currents  which  will  render  any 
such  inferences  invalid.  See  further  the  note  on  Free- Will  and 
Predestination  at  the  end  of  ch.  xi. 

In  further  characterizing  '  those  who  love  God '  St.  Paul  na- 
turally strikes  the  point  at  which  their  love  became  manifest  by  the 
acceptance  of  the  Divine  Call.  This  call  is  one  link  in  the  chain 
of  Providential  care  which  attends  them  :  and  it  suggests  the  other 
links  which  stretch  far  back  into  the  past  and  far  forward  into  the 
future.  By  enumerating  these  the  Apostle  completes  his  prool 
that  the  love  of  God  never  quits  His  chosen  ones. 

The  enumeration  follows  the  order  of  succession  in  time 

For  Trpo^eo-i?  see  on  ch.   ix.    II  17  Kar    €Kkoyi]v  Trpd^ecrts  tov  ©toiij 

which  would  prove,  if  proof  were  needed,  that  the  purpose  is  that 
of  God  and  not  of  man  {kiit  olKtiav  rrpoaipta-iv  Theoph.  and  the 
Greek  Fathers  generally):  cornp.  also  Eph.  i.  11 ;  iii.  11 ;  2  Tim, 
i.  9. 

It  was  one  of  the  misfortunes  of  Greek  theolog)  that  it  received  a  bias  ia 
the  Free- Will  controversy  from  opposition  to  the  Gnostics  (cf.  p.  269  in/.) 
which  it  never  afterwards  lost,  and  which  seriously  prejudiced  its  exegesis 
wherever  this  question  was  concerned.  Thus  in  the  present  instance,  the  great 
mass  of  the  Greek  commentators  take  KaroL  irpoOanv  to  mean  '  in  accordance 
with  the  man's  own  irpoaipfais  or  free  act  of  choice'  (see  the  extracts  in 
Cramer's  Catena  'e  cod.  Monac' ;  and  add  Theoph.  Oecum.  Euthym.-Zig.). 
The  two  partial  exceptions  are,  as  we  might  expect,  Origen  and  Cyril  ol 
Alexandria,  who  however  both  show  traces  of  the  influences  current  in  the 
Eastern  Church.  Origen  also  seems  inclined  to  take  it  of  the  propositum 
bonum  *t  bonam  voluntattm  quam  circa  Dii  cultum  gtrunt ;  but  he  admits 
the  alternative  that  it  may  refer  to  the  purpose  of  God.  If  so,  it  refers  to 
this  purpose  as  determined  by  His  foreknowledge  of  the  character*  and 
conduct  of  men.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  asks  the  question,  Whose  purpoae  ii 
intended  1  and  decides  tha^  it  woald  not  be  wron^  to  answer  ri^v  t«  ro> 


Vin.  28,  29.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  21 9 

KtK\i]K6Tot  mai  T^  Imn-Sgr.    He  comes  to  this  decUon  however  nther  oo 

dogmatic  than  on  exegetical  grounds. 

It  is  equally  a  straining  of  the  text  when  Augustine  distinguishes  two  kinds 
of  call,  one  secundum  propositum,  the  call  of  the  elect,  and  the  other  of  those 
who  are  not  elect.  Non  enim  omnes  vocati  secundum  propositum  sunt 
vocati:  quoniam  multi  vocati,  pauci  eltcti.  Ipsi  ergo  secundum  propositum 
vocati  qui  electi  ante  constitutionem  mundi  {Cont.  duas  Epist.  Pelag.  ii.  lo. 
§  3  3,  cf-  Cont.  Julian,  v.  6,  §  14).  In  the  idea  of  a  double  call,  Augustine 
seems  to  have  been  anticipated  by  Origen,  who  however,  as  we  have  seen, 
gives  a  different  sense  to  Ko-rh  irp66((nv:  omnes  quidem  vocati  sunt,  nontamen 
pmtut  secundum  propositum  v»cati  sunt  (ed.  Lomm.  vil.  13S). 

KXt|Tois :  '  called,'  implying  that  the  call  has  been  obeyed.  The 
(tX^trtt  is  not  au  salut  (Oltr.),  at  least  in  the  sense  of  final  salva- 
tion, but  simply  to  become  Christians :  see  on  i.  i. 

29.  8Tt :  certainly  here  '  because,'  assigning  a  reason  for  Kovra 
<rwfpy('i  6  Qfos  tls  dyadov,  not  'that'  (=  c'es/  que  Oltr.). 

ous  irpo^yKw.  The  meaning  of  this  phrase  must  be  determined 
by  the  Biblical  use  of  the  word  '  know,'  which  is  very  marked  and 
clear :  e.  g.  Ps.  i.  6  '  The  Lord  knoweth  (yty!^wo-»c«t)  the  way  of  the 
righteous';  cxliv  [cxliii].  3  'Lord,  what  is  man  that  Thou  takest 
knowledge  of  him  (ot*  fyvd>a6r)s  aira  LXX)  ?  Or  the  son  of  man 
that  Thou  makest  account  of  him?'  Hos.  xiii.  5  '  I  did  know 
{(iroifMatvoy)  thee  in  the  wilderness.'  Am.  iii.  2  'You  only  have 
I  known  (tyvav)  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth.'  Matt.  vn.  23 
'  Then  will  I  profess  unto  them  I  never  knew  (fyi/wj/)  you,'  &c. 
In  all  these  places  the  word  means  *  to  take  note  of,'  '  to  fix  the 
regard  upon,'  as  a  preliminary  to  selection  for  some  especial  pur- 
pose. 'The  compound  npotyva  only  throws  back  this  *  taking 
note '  from  the  historic  act  in  time  to  the  eternal  counsel  which 
it  expresses  and  executes. 

This  interpretation  (which  is  yery  similar  to  that  of  Godet  and  which 
approaches,  though  it  is  not  exactly  identical  with,  that  of  a  number  of  older 
commentators,  who  make  npoeyvoi  =  p7atdiligere,  approbare)  has  the  double 
advantage  of  being  strictly  conformed  to  Biblical  usage  and  of  reading 
nothing  into  the  word  which  we  are  not  sure  is  there.  This  latter  objection 
applies  to  most  other  ways  of  taking  the  passage :  e.g.  to  Origen's,  when  he 
makes  the  foreknowledge  a  foreknowledge  of  character  and  fitness,  npoava- 
Tfviffas  ovv  6  Qeot  t^  tlpfxZ  rS/v  kaofihtav,  Koi  Karavo-qaas  fioirrjf  rov  k(f>'  tjiiiv 
rwvbi  Tivojy  iirl  tiae^eiay  Kal  opfii^v  im  ravrrfv  fitri  rrjy  poinjv  «.t.X. 
{Fhilocal.  xxv.  3.  p.  327,  ed.  Robinson  ;  the  comment  ad  loc.  is  rather  nearer 
the  mark,  cognovisse  suos  diciiur,  hoc  est  in  dikctione  habuisse  sibiqut 
sociasse,  but  there  too  is  added  sciens  quaUs  essent).  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
(and  after  him  Meyer)  supplies  from  what  follows  upocyvitad-qoav  Cm  taovrai 
avnnop(poi  T^s  tlie6vot  rov  tiov  abrov,  but  this  belongs  properly  only  to 
wpoupifff.  Widest  from  the  mark  are  those  who,  like  Calvin,  look  beyond 
the  immediate  choice  to  final  salvation :  Dei  autem  praecogniiio,  cuius  hie 
Paulus  meminit,  non  nuda  est  praescientia  .  .  .  sed  adoptio  qua  Jilios  suos 
m  reprebis  semper  discrevit.  On  the  other  hand,  Gif.  keeps  closely  to  the 
context  in  explaining,  ' "  Foreknew  "  as  the  individual  objects  of  His  purpose 
{irp69fais)  and  therefore  foreknew  as  "them  that  love  God."'  The  only 
defect  in  this  seems  to  be  that  it  does  not  soffidently  take  •ccoont  oi  the 
O.  T.  and  N.  T-  use  of  ytyvi>atcm. 


tl8  BPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [VIII.  20,  80 

■al  wpo^pi<r«.  The  Apostle  overleaps  for  the  moment  inter- 
mediate steps  and  carries  the  believer  onward  to  the  final  con- 
summation of  God's  purpose  in  respect  to  him.  This  is  exactly 
defined  as  '  conformity  to  the  image  of  His  Son.' 

au|jifi6p<^ous  denotes  inward  and  thorough  and  not  merely  super- 
ficial likeness. 

Tijs  tiKiJi'os.  As  the  Son  is  the  image  of  the  Father  (»  Cor.  iv. 
4;  Col.  i.  15),  so  the  Christian  is  to  reflect  the  image  of  Hit 
Lord,  passing  through  a  gradual  assimilation  of  mind  and  character 
to  an  ultimate  assimilation  of  His  d6$a,  the  absorption  of  the 
splendour  of  His  presence. 

CIS  t6  etcai  auT&K  irpur^roKOK  ir  ireXXoit  dScX^ois.  As  the  final 
cause  of  all  things  is  the  glory  of  God,  so  the  final  cause  of  the 
Incarnation  and  of  the  effect  of  the  Incarnation  upon  man  is  that 
che  Son  may  be  surrounded  by  a  multitude  of  the  redeemed. 
These  He  vouchsafes  to  call  His  '  brethren.'  They  are  a  '  family,' 
the  entrance  into  which  is  through  the  Resurrection.  As  Christ 
was  the  first  to  rise,  He  is  the  '  Eldest-born '  (TrpwrdroKor  in  rw 

vtKpHv,    Iva  yevTjTM    tp   na(riv    avTos    npoartvatp    Col.    i.    1 8).      This    is 

different  from  the  'first-born  of  all  creation'  (Col.  i.  15).  vpuro- 
TOKot  is  a  metaphorical  expression ;  the  sense  of  which  is  determined 
by  the  context;  in  Col.  i.  15  it  is  relative  to  creation,  here  it  is 
relative  to  the  state  to  which  entrance  is  through  the  Resurrection 
(see  Lightfoot's  note  on  the  passage  in  Col.). 

80.  ous  hi  Trpowpiac  K.T.X.  Having  taken  his  readers  to  the  end 
of  the  scale,  the  S6$a  in  which  the  career  of  the  Christian  cul- 
minates, the  Apostle  now  goes  back  and  resolves  the  latter  part  of 
the  process  into  its  subdivisions,  of  which  the  landmarks  are 
tKoktiTtp,  fHiKaiaatv,  *86^a<rt.  Thesc  are  not  quite  exhaustive: 
tiyiatrtv  might  have  been  inserted  after  edtxaiwo-ei' ;  but  it  is  sufl5- 
ciently  implied  as  a  consequence  of  fiixalaxrey  and  a  necessary 
condition  of  iU^avt :  in  pursuance  of  the  Divine  purpose  that 
Christians  should  be  conformed  to  Christ,  the  first  step  is  the  call ; 
this  brings  wiih  it,  when  it  is  obeyed,  the  wiping  out  of  past  sins, 
or  justification;  and  from  that  there  is  a  straight  course  to  the 
crowning  with  Divine  glory.  tKaXtatp  and  tSiKoiaatv  are  both 
naturally  in  the  aorist  tense  as  pointing  to  something  finished 
and  therefore  past :  i^o^aatv  is  not  strictly  either  finished  or  past, 
but  it  is  attracted  into  the  same  tense  as  the  preceding  verbs ;  an 
attraction  which  is  further  justified  by  the  fact  that,  though  not 
complete  in  its  historical  working  out,  the  step  implied  in  «Sd^a(r*»> 
is  both  cotnplete  and  certam  in  the  Divine  counsels.  To  God 
there  is  neither  '  before  nor  after.' 


Fill.  31-39.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  SI  9 


THS  FBOOFS  AND  ASSUBANCB  OF  BIVINB  XiOTB. 

VIII.  81-30.  Wiik  the  proofs  of  God's  lovi  before  hint^ 
the  Christian  has  nothing  to  fear.  God,  the  Judge,  is  on 
his  side,  and  thi  ascended  Christ  intercedes  for  him 
(w.  31-34). 

The  love  of  God  in  Christ  is  so  strong  that  earthly 
sufferings  and  persecutions — nay,  all  forms  and  phases  of 
being — are  powerless  to  intercept  »'/,  or  to  bar  the  Christians 
triumph  (w.  35-39). 

"  What  conclusion  are  we  to  draw  from  this  ?  Surely  the 
strongest  possible  comfort  and  encouragement.  With  God  on  our 
side  what  enemy  can  we  fear  ?  *■  Ag  Abraham  spared  not  Isaac, 
so  He  spared  not  the  Son  who  shared  His  Godhead,  but  suffered 
Him  to  die  for  all  believers.  Is  not  this  a  sure  proof  that  along 
with  that  one  transcendent  gift  His  bounty  will  provide  all  that  is 
necessary  for  our  salvation  ?  "  Where  shall  accusers  be  found 
against  those  whom  God  has  chosen  P  When  God  pronounces 
righteous,  **  who  shall  condemn  ?  For  us  Christ  has  died ;  I  should 
say  rather  rose  again ;  and  not  only  rose  but  sits  enthroned  at 
His  Father's  side,  and  there  pleads  continually  for  us.  **  His  love 
is  our  security.  And  that  love  is  so  strong  that  nothing  on  earth 
can  come  between  us  and  it  The  sea  of  troubles  that  a  Christian 
has  to  face,  hardship  and  persecution  of  every  kind,  are  powerless 
against  it ;  **  though  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  might  well  be 
applied  to  us,  in  which,  speaking  of  the  faithful  few  in  his  own 
generation,  he  described  them  as  '  for  God's  sake  butchered  all 
day  long,  treated  like  sheep  in  the  shambles.'  "  We  too  are  no 
better  than  they.  And  yet,  crushed  and  routed  as  we  may  seem, 
the  love  of  Christ  crowns  as  with  surpassing  victory.  "  For  I  am 
convinced  that  no  form  or  phase  of  being,  whether  abstract  or 
personal ;  not  life  or  its  negation ;  not  any  hierarchy  of  spirits ;  no 
dimension  of  time ;  no  supernatural  powers ;  **  no  dimension  of 
space;  no  world  of  being  invisible  to  us  now, — will  ever  come 
between  us  and  the  love  which  God  has  brought  so  near  to  as  in 
Jesus  Messiah  oor  Lord. 


S30  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VIII.  82,  88 

82.  is  v«  Tou  ISiou  ulou  O0K  f^ciaaro.  A  nnmber  of  emphatic 
expressions  are  crowded  together  in  this  sentence :  it  ye, '  the  same 
God  who ' ;  tov  Idlov  vloi,  '  His  own  Son,'  partaker  of  His  own 
nature ;  ovk  ((^titraro,  the  word  which  is  used  of  the  offering  of 
Isaac  in  Gen.  xxii.  i6,  and  so  directly  recalls  that  offering — the 
greatest  sacrifice  on  record.     For  the  argument  comp.  v.  6-io. 

33-35.  The  best  punctuation  of  these  verses  is  that  which  is 
adopted  in  RV.  text  (so  also  Orig.  Chrys.  Theodrt.  Mey.  EU. 
Gif.  Va.  Lid.).  There  should  not  be  more  than  a  colon  between 
the  clauses  e«or  6  iMaimv  ris  i  KoraKpipav ;  God  is  coHceived  of  as 
Judge :  where  He  acquits,  who  can  condemn  ?  Ver.  34  is  then 
immediately  taken  up  by  ver.  35 :  Christ  proved  His  love  by  dying 
for  us ;  who  then  shall  part  us  from  that  love  ?  The  Apostle 
clearly  has  in  his  mind  Is.  1.  8,  9  '  He  is  near  that  justifieth  men ; 
who  will  contend  with  me  ?  .  .  .  Behold,  the  Lord  God  will  help 
me ;  who  is  he  that  shall  condemn  me  ? '  This  distinctly  favours 
the  view  that  each  affirmation  is  followed  by  a  question  relating  to 
that  affirmation.  The  phrases  6  KaraKpivHv  and  6  diKiu»v  form 
a  natural  antithesis,  which  it  is  wrong  to  break  up  by  putting  a  full 
stop  between  them  and  taking  one  with  what  precedes,  the  other 
with  what  follows. 

On  the  view  taken  above,  Oc^  6  Siicat&v  and  X^ffrdt  ItjooSt  6  iwo§arim 
are  both  answers  to  ris  iyxaXftTti ;  and  ris  6  KaroKpivuiv ;  rit  ijitas  x^P^*^*^  i 
are  subordinate  questions,  suggested  in  the  one  case  by  SiKoicDi',  in  the  other 
by  (vr.  inip  fifxuv.  We  observe  also  that  on  this  view  ver.  35  is  closely 
linked  to  ver.  34.  The  rapid  succession  of  thought  which  is  thus  obtained, 
each  step  leading  on  to  the  next,  is  in  fiill  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
passage. 

Another  way  of  taking  it  is  to  put  a  full  stop  at  iiicaiSiv,  and  to  make  Wt 
iyKoKiau ;  ris  i  xaraKpticDv ;  two  distinct  questions  with  wholly  distinct 
answers.  So  Fri.  Lips.  Weiss  Oltr.  Go.  Others  again  (RV.  marg.  Beng. 
De  W.  Mou.)  make  all  the  clauses  questions  (©«^r  6  biKaiSiv ;  kvTVfX'  inrif 
ilfjuuv ;)  But  these  repeated  challenges  do  not  giva  sack  a  aerrou  coaeateoa- 
tioD  of  reasoning. 

88.  Tis  ^KaX^o-ci;  another  of  the  forensic  terms  which  are  so 
common  in  this  Epistle ;  '  Who  shall  impeach  such  as  are  elect  <^ 
God?' 

^kXcktuk.  We  have  already  seen  (note  on  i.  i)  that  with 
St.  Paul  KkijToi  and  fKAtrro*  are  not  opposed  to  each  other  (a«  they 
are  in  Matt.  xxii.  14)  but  are  rather  to  be  identified.  By  reading 
into  icX»;7-ot'  the  implication  that  the  call  is  accepted,  St.  Paul  shows 
that  the  persons  of  whom  this  is  true  are  also  objects  of  God's 
choice.  By  both  terms  St.  Paul  designates  not  those  who  are  de* 
stined  for  final  salvation,  but  those  who  are  '  summoned '  or  '  se- 
lected '  for  the  privilege  of  serving  God  and  carrying  out  His  will 
If  their  career  runs  its  normal  course  it  must  issue  m  salvation, 
the  '  glory '  reserved  for  them ;  this  lies  as  it  were  at  the  end  <A 


VIII.  88-86.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  331 

the  avenue;  but  *(«X*rr5r  only  shows  that  they  are  in  the  right 
way  to  reach  it.  At  least  no  external  power  can  bar  them  from 
it ;  if  they  lose  it,  they  will  do  so  by  their  own  fault 

KoraKplvMv :  tmroMpivair  RV.  ttxt  Mon.  This  is  quite  possible,  bot  Stmuaw 
mggests  the  present 

S4.  XpioTos  Itjo-oO*  K  AC  F  G L,  Vulg.  Boh.  Arm.  Aeth.,  Orig.-lat  Did. 
Aug. :  XpiarSs  (om.  'Itjaovs)  B  D  E  K  &c.,  Syrr.,  Cyr.-Jenis.  Chrys.  ai. 
Another  instance  of  B  in  alliance  with  authorities  otherwise  Western  and 
Syrian.     \VH.  bracket  'irjc. 

iytp6ti%  «K  veicpav  H* AC  al.flur.,  RV.  WH':  em.  I«  Kitpwv  K'BDE 
FGKL  &c.,  Ti,  WH*.  The  group  which  inserts  U  vtKfSiv  it  practically 
ths  sanae  as  that  which  inserts  ^Irjaovs  above. 

8«  Koi.  Stroke  follows  stroke,  each  driving  home  the  last.  *  It 
is  Christ  who  died — nay  rather  (immo  vero)  rose  from  the  dead — 
who  {koi  should  be  omitted  here)  is  at  the  right  hand  of  God — who 
also  intercedes  for  us.'  It  is  not  a  dead  Christ  on  whom  we  depend, 
but  a  living.  It  is  not  only  a  living  Christ,  but  a  Christ  enthroned, 
a  Christ  in  power.  It  is  not  only  a  Christ  in  power,  but  a  Christ 
of  ever-active  sympathy,  constantly  (if  we  may  so  speak)  at  the 
Father's  ear,  and  constantly  pouring  in  intercessions  for  His 
struggling  people  on  earth.  A  great  text  for  the  value  and 
significance  of  the  Ascension  (cf.  Swete,  Apost.  Creed,  p.  67  f.). 

36.  dwi  Tt]s  dY<iin|s  too  XpiaToO.  There  is  an  alternative  reading 
roC  GeoO  for  which  the  authorities  are  ^5  B,  Orig.  {1/3  doubtfully  in 
the  Greek,  but  6/7  in  Rufinus'  Latin  translation) ;  Eus.  4/6 ;  Bas. 
2/6 ;  Hil.  i/a  and  some  others.  RV.  WH.  note  this  reading  in 
marg.  But  of  the  authorities  B  Orig.-lat.  a/7  read  in  full  ano  t^s 
dydn-i;!  rov  ©fov  r^f  iv  Xpiara  'irjaov,  which  is  obviously  taken  from 
ver.  39.  Even  in  its  simpler  form  the  reading  is  open  to  suspicion 
of  being  conformed  to  that  verse :  to  which  however  it  may  be 
replied  that  Xpiarov  may  also  be  a  correction  from  the  same  source. 
On  the  whole  Xptarov  seems  more  probable,  and  falls  in  better  with 
the  view  maintained  above  of  the  close  connexion  of  vv.  34,  35. 

'  The  love  of  Christ '  is  unquestionably  '  the  love  of  Christ  for 
us,'  not  our  love  for  Christ :  cf.  v.  5. 

6Xrv|;is  ic.T.X.  We  have  here  a  splendid  example  of  Kaixn^^f  *" 
Tois  6\i^«Tiv  of  which  St.  Paul  wrote  in  ch.  v.  3  flf.  The  passage 
shows  how  he  soared  away  in  spirit  above  those  '  sufferings  of  this 
present  time '  which  men  migte  inflict,  but  after  that  had  nothing 
more  that  they  could  do.  On  6kiy\ris  ^  o-Tej'ox<»P'a  see  ii,  9 ;  for 
iit»y(i6s  cf.  a  Cor.  xi.  33  ff.,  3a  f. ;  xii.  10,  &c. ;  for  Xt^oy  ^  yv/ii/oVr^s, 
I  Cor.  iv.  11;  a  Cor.  xi.  a7  ;  for  KiVawot  a  Cor.  xi.  a6;  i  Cor. 
XV.  30. 

36.  3ti  l^cKd  aow.  The  quotation  is  exact  from  LXX  of  P& 
xliv  [xliii].  23  :  on  belongs  to  it. 

IvfKtv  is  decisively  attested  here :  in  the  Psalm  B  bos  ffcco,  MAT  {vcjrcr. 
where  there  is  a  presumption  against  the  reading  of  B. 


»aa  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS         [VIII.  86-8a 

6avaroJft«6a    2Xnr   j^w   ^nipav:    cf.    I   Cor.    xv.    31    Ka(f  ^fUpa» 

airo6vT](TKCi :  *  tota  die,  hoc  est,  omni  viiae  meae  tempore  '  Orig. 

irp6^aTa  a<f>aYtis :  sheep  destined  for  slaughter;  cf.  Zech.  xi.  4 

ra  np6,ia.Ta  ri^s  <r4>ayris  (cf.  Jer.  xii.  3  itp6iiaTa  tit  vcpayi'/v  Cod.  Marchal. 

marg.). 

The  Latin  texts  of  thii  Terse  are  marked  and  characteristie.  Tertnllian, 
Scorp.  13  Tua  causa  wtortificamur  tota  dU,  dtputati  sutnui  ut  ptcora  iugu- 
lationis.  Cyprian,  Test.  iii.  18  (the  true  text;  cf.  Epist.  xxxi.  4)  Causa  tut 
occidimur  tota  die,  deputati  sumus  ut  oves  victimae.  Hilary  of  Poitiers, 
Tract,  in  Pt.  cxviii.  (ed.  Zingerle,  p.  439")  Propter  tt  nutrtificamur  tota  die, 
deputati  sumus  sicut  oves  occisionis.  Irenaens,  Adv.  Haer.  II.  xxii.  a 
[J.atine;  cf.  IV.  xvi.  2)  Propter  te  mort*  afficimur  tota  die,  aestimati  sumus 
ut  eves  occisionis.  (vSimilarly  Cod.  Claxom  Speculum  Augustini,  codd.  ML) 
Vulgate  (Cod.  Ainiat.)  Propter  te  mortificamur  tota  die,  aestimati  sumus 
tit  oves  occisionis.  Here  two  types  of  text  stand  out  clearly :  that  of  Cyprian 
at  one  end  of  the  scale,  and  that  of  the  Vulgate  (with  which  we  may  group 
Iren.-lat.  Cod.  Clarom.  and  the  Speculum)  at  the  other.  Hilary  stands 
between,  having  deputati  in  common  with  Cvprian,  but  on  the  whole  leaning 
rather  to  the  later  group.  The  most  difficult  problem  is  presented  by 
TertuUian,  who  approaches  Cyprian  in  Tua  causa  and  deputati,  and  the 
Vulgate  group  in  mortificamur :  in  pecorm  iugulationis  he  stands  alone 
This  passage  might  seem  to  favonr  the  view  that  in  TertuUian  we  had  the 
primitive  text  from  which  all  the  rest  were  derived.  That  hypothesis  how- 
ever would  be  difficult  to  maintain  systematically;  and  in  any  case  there 
mnst  be  a  large  element  in  Tertullian's  text  which  is  simply  individual. 
The  text  before  us  may  be  said  to  give  a  glimpse  of  the  average  position  oi 
a  problem  which  is  still  some  way  &om  solution. 

87.  flirepi'iitwfjiei'.  TertuUian  and  Cyprian  represent  this  by  the 
coinage  supervinctmus  (Vulg.  Cod.  Clarom.  Hil.  superamus) ;  '  over- 
come strongly '  Tyn. ;  '  are  more  than  conquerors '  Genev.,  happily 
adopted  in  AV. 

Sid  ToG  i.yaiir\<ravTOt  i)|Jias  points  back  to  r^r  iydmit  rov  %purT*i 
In  ver.  35. 

88.  ouTc  ayYcXoi  oStc  dpxaC  '  And  He  will  call  on  all  the  host 
of  the  heavens  and  all  the  holy  ones  above,  and  the  host  of  God, 
the  Cherubim,  Seraphim,  and  Ophanim,  and  all  the  angels  of 
power,  and  all  the  angels  of  principalities,  and  the  Elect  One,  and 
the  other  powers  on  the  earth,  over  the  water,  on  that  day '  Enoch 
Ixi.  10.  St.  PaiJ  from  time  to  time  makes  use  of  similar  Jewish 
designations  for  the  hierarchy  of  angels :  so  in  i  Cor.  xv.  24 ; 
Eph.  i.  a  I  a  ,\ij,  f^ovaia,  8vvafus,  Kvpidrrjs,  rrav  Sro/ta  oyoixa^ofifvov : 
iii.  10;  vi.  12;    Col.  i.  16  (dpovoi,  Kvpi6TtjT(e,  apxai,  i^ova'uu) ',   ii.  ID, 

15.  The  whtle  world  of  spirits  is  summed  up  in  Phil.  ii.  10  as 
ejTowpdvioi,  imyfoi,  KoraxOovioi.  It  is  somewliat  noticeable  that  whereas 
the  terms  used  are  generally  abstract,  in  several  places  they  are 
made  still  more  abstract  by  the  use  of  the  sing,  instead  of  plur., 
oray  Karapyrfvjj  wcurav  apxrfv  Koi  waaav  f^ovaiav  Ka\  Svpafuv  I  Cor.  XV, 
24;  inrtpapc*  irdtrtft  dp^fit  koi  f^ovaias  iutX.  Eph.  L  SIj  f  u<paXi 
irtunjr  apx^  koI  t^owriat  CoL  ii   lO. 


^11.  88,  88.]  LIFE  IN  THE  SPIRIT  Saj 

It  is  ako  true  (as  pointed  ont  hy  Weiss,  BtV.  ThtoL  §  104] 

Anm.  1.  2)  that  the  leading  passages  in  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of 
angels  are  those  in  which  his  language  aims  at  embracing  the 
whole  KOfTixot.  He  is  very  far  from  a  Sp^a-Ktia  tS»  dyytXav  such  as  he 
protests  against  in  the  Church  at  Colossae  (Col.  ii.  18).  At  the 
same  time  the  parallels  which  have  been  given  (see  also  below 
under  6vvdfi(is)  are  enough  to  show  that  the  Apostle  must  not  be 
separated  from  the  common  beliefs  of  his  countrymen.  He  held 
that  there  was  a  world  of  spirits  brought  into  being  like  the  rest  of 
creation  by  Christ  (Col.  i.  16).  These  spirits  are  ranged  in 
a  certain  hierarchy  to  which  the  current  names  are  given.  They 
seem  to  be  neither  wholly  good  nor  wholly  bad,  for  to  them  too 
the  Atonement  of  the  Cross  extends  (Col.  L  20  dn-oicaraXXa^at  ri 
iravra  th  avrop  .  .  .  «r«  ra  fin  rijs  y^s  «iT€  ra  iv  rote  ovpavoii).  There 
is  a  sense  in  which  the  Death  on  the  Cross  is  a  triumph  over  them 
(Col.ii.  15).  They  too  must  acknowledge  the  universal  sovereignty 
of  Christ  (i  Cor.  xv.  34;  cf.  Eph.  i.  10);  and  they  form  part  of 
that  kingdom  which  He  hands  over  to  the  Father,  that '  God  may 
be  all  in  all '  (i  Cor.  xv.  28).  On  the  whole  subject  see  Everling, 
Dit paulinischt  Angelologie  u.  DSmotiologie,  GOttingen,  i888. 

For  a77«Xoi  the  Weftem  text  (D  E  F  G,  Ambrstr.  Ang.  Amb.)  hat 
iyy(\ot.  There  is  also  a  tendency  in  the  Western  and  later  authorities  to 
insert  ovt(  ((ovaiat  before  or  after  dpxaif  obviously  from  the  parallel  passages 
in  which  the  words  occnr  together. 

ouTf  8uK<£p.cif .  There  is  overwhelming  authority  (M  A  B  C  D  Ac.) 
for  placing  these  words  after  ovt*  fUXXovra.  We  naturally  expect 
them  to  be  associated  with  dpxai,  as  in  i  Cor.  xv.  14  ;  Eph.  i.  31. 
It  is  possible  that  in  one  of  the  earliest  copies  the  word  may  have 
been  accidentally  omitted,  and  then  added  in  the  margin  and  re- 
inserted at  the  wrong  place.  We  seem  to  have  a  like  primitive 
corruption  in  ch.  iv.  13  (tois  «rToi;^oi;<r»»').  But  it  is  perhaps  more 
probable  that  in  the  rush  of  impassioned  thought  St  Paul  inserts 
the  words  as  they  come,  and  that  thus  ovrt  Hvwdiuu  may  be  slightly 
belated.  It  has  been  suggested  that  St  Paul  takes  alternately 
animate  existences  and  inanimate.  When  not  critically  controlled, 
the  order  of  association  is  a  very  subtle  thing. 

For  the  word  compare  '  the  angels  of  power '  and  '  the  other  powen  on 
the  earth '  in  the  passage  from  the  Book  of  Enoch  quoted  above ;  also  Test. 
XII  Pair.  Levi  3  ir  ry  rplr^t  (so.  ovpcw^)  *i<Tly  at  Supi/xus  twv  vaptn^oXw, 
oi  raxOtvTft  fit  ^fUp<w  Kpifftwt,  noi^mu  iKSimjair  ir  roit  wvtvuaoi  r^s  vXAytjt 
cat  ToS  BtXiap. 

89.  oSn  uijftffia  oSn  pA9o%.  Lips,  would  give  to  the  whole 
conte.Kt  a  somewhat  more  limited  application  than  is  usually 
assigned  to  it  He  makes  oCre  cVcot.  .  .  ^odor  all  refer  to  angelic 
powers :  '  neither  now  nor  at  the  end  of  life  (when  such  spirits 
were  thought  to  be  most  active)  shall  the  spirits  either  01  the 


124  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [VTII.  89 

height  or  from  the  depth  bar  our  entrance  into  the  next  world, 
where  the  love  of  Christ  will  be  still  nearer  to  us.'  This  is  also 
the  view  of  Origen  (see  below).  But  it  is  quite  in  the  mannei  of 
St.  Paul  to  personify  abstractions,  and  the  sense  attached  to  them 
cannot  well  be  too  large :  cf.  esp.  Eph.  iii.  1 8  ri  r6  irXdros  xai  firjKot 
KOI  v\^os  Koi  &ados,  and  t  Cor.  X.  5  vav  v^ufJia  *ii€up6fifyo9  Kara  ttjs 
yyoxrtoiis  tov  Ocov. 

The  common  patristic  explanation  of  Cipaifta  is '  thing*  above  the  hetyens,' 

and  of  ^aOoi,  'things  beneath  the  earth.'  Theod,  Monach.  iiipaifxa  /xiy  ri 
dyav  iniSo^a,  Pd6os  ii  rcL  ayav  a5o(a,  Theodoret  fiiOos  Si  tt^v  yitwar, 
v\f/ojfjui  T^v  ^affi\tiav.  Origen  tin  Cramer's  Catena)  explains  vipojfta  of  the 
'spiritual  hosts  of  wickedness  in  the  heavenly  places'  Eph.  vL  la),  and 
liddos  of  TcL  KaraxOoyia.  The  expanded  version  of  Kufinus  approaches  still 
more  nearly  to  the  theory  of  Lipsius:  Similiter  et  altitudo  et  profundum 
itnpugnant  nos,  sicut  et  David  dicit  multi  qni  debellant  me  de  alto :  iint 
dubio  cum  a  spiritibits  nequitiae  de  caelestibut  urgeretur:  et  sicut  iterum 
dicit :  de  profundis  clamavi  ad  te,  Doniine :  cum  ab  his  qui  in  inftm* 
deputati  sunt  et  gehennae  spiritibui  itnfugnaretur. 

ouTc  T15  KTiais  iripa..  The  use  of  iripa  and  not  nXX?;  seems  to 
favour  the  view  that  this  means  not  exactly  'any  other  created 
ihing  '  but  '  any  other  kind  of  creation/  '  any  other  mode  of  being,' 
besides  those  just  enumerated  and  differing  from  the  familiar  world 
as  we  see  it. 

Origen  (in  Cramer)  would  like  to  take  the  passage  in  this  way.  He  aakt 
if  there  may  not  be  another  creation  besices  this  visible  one,  '  in  its  nature 
visible  though  not  as  yet  seen ' — a  description  which  might  seem  to  anticipate 
the  discoveries  of  the  microscope  and  telescope.  Comp.  Balfour,  Foundations 
of  Belief,  p.  71  f.  'It  is  impossible  therefore  to  resist  the  conviction  that 
there  must  be  an  indefinite  number  of  aspects  of  Nature  respecting  which 
science  never  can  give  us  any  information,  even  in  our  dreams.  We  must 
conceive  ourselves  as  feeling  our  way  about  this  dim  comer  of  the  illimit- 
able world,  like  children  in  a  darkened  room,  encompassed  by  we  know 
not  what ;  a  little  better  endowed  with  the  machinery  of  sensation  than  the 
protozoon,  yet  poorly  provided  indeed  as  compared  with  a  being,  if  such 
a  one  could  be  conceived,  whose  senses  were  adequate  to  the  infinite  variety 
of  material  Nature.* 

dirS  T^s  dydinis  too  0eoo  ti]S  Iv  Xpiar^  *lT)aoO.  This  is  the  full 
Christian  idea.  The  love  of  Christ  is  no  doubt  capable  of  being 
isolated  and  described  separately  (2  Cor.  v.  14 ;  Eph.  iii.  19),  but 
the  love  of  Christ  is  really  a  manifestation  of  the  love  of  God. 
A  striking  instance  of  the  way  in  which  the  whole  Godhead 
co-operates  in  this  manifestation  is  ch.  v.  5-8  :  the  love  of  God 
is  poured  out  in  our  hearts  through  thi  Holy  Spirit,  because  Chrisi 
died  for  us ;  and  God  commends  His  love  because  Chrisi  died. 
The  same  essential  significance  runs  through  this  section  (not* 
esD.  w.  31-35,  39)- 


IX.  1-6.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  2%$ 

THB  AFOSTUrS  SOBBOW  OVEB  ISBAEIi'S  TTIirBEIjrBF. 

IX.  1-6.  TAe  thought  of  this  magnificent  prospect  fills 
mt  with  sorrow  for  those  who  seem  to  be  excluded  from  it — 
my  own  countrymen  for  whom  I  would  willingly  sacrifict 
my  dearest  hopes — excluded  too  in  spite  of  all  their  special 
privileges  and  their  high  destiny. 

*  How  glorious  the  prospect  of  the  life  in  Christ !  How  mournful 
the  thought  of  those  who  are  cut  oflF  from  it!  There  is  no 
shadow  of  falsehood  in  the  statement  I  am  about  to  make.  As 
one  who  has  his  life  in  Christ  I  affirm  a  solemn  truth ;  and  my 
conscience,  speaking  under  the  direct  influence  of  God's  Holy 
Spirit,  bears  witness  to  my  sincerity.  "There  is  one  grief  that 
I  cannot  shake  off,  one  distressing  weight  that  lies  for  ever  at  my 
heart  '  Like  Moses  when  he  came  down  from  the  mount,  the  prayer 
has  been  in  my  mind :  Could  I  by  the  personal  sacrifice  of  my 
own  salvation  for  them,  even  by  being  cut  off  from  all  communion 
with  Christ,  in  any  way  save  my  own  countrymen  ?  Are  they  not 
my  own  brethren,  my  kinsmen  as  far  as  earthly  relationship  is 
concerned  ?  *  Are  they  not  God's  own  privileged  people  ?  They 
bear  the  sacred  name  of  Israel  with  all  that  it  implies ;  it  is  they 
whom  He  declared  to  be  His  'son,'  His  'firstborn'  (Exod.  iv.  22); 
their  temple  has  been  illuminated  by  the  glory  of  the  Divine 
presence;  they  are  bound  to  Him  by  a  series  of  covenants  re- 
peatedly renewed ;  to  them  He  gave  a  system  of  law  on  Mount 
Sinai ;  year  after  year  they  have  offered  up  the  solemn  worship  of 
the  temple ;  they  have  been  the  depositories  of  the  Divine  promises ; 
•  their  ancestors  are  the  patriarchs,  who  were  accounted  righteous 
before  God ;  from  them  in  these  last  days  has  come  the  Messiah 
as  regards  his  natural  descent — that  Messiah  who  although  sprung 
from  a  human  parent  is  supreme  over  all  things,  none  other  than 
God,  the  eternal  object  of  human  praise  I 

IX-XI.  St  Paul  has  now  finished  his  main  argument.     He 

has  expounded  his  conception  of  the  Gospel.  But  there  still 
remains  a  difficulty  which  could  not  help  suggesting  itself  to 
every  thoughtful  reader,  and  which  was  continually  being  raised 
by  one  class  of  Christians  at  the  time  when  he  wrote.  How  is 
this  new  scheme  of  righteousness  and  salvation  apart  from  law 


226  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [UL  1. 

consistent  with  the  privileged  position  of  the  Jew*?  They  had 
been  the  chosen  race  (we  find  St.  Paul  enumerating  their  privileges), 
through  them  the  Messiah  had  come,  and  yet  it  appeared  they 
would  be  rejected  if  they  would  not  accept  this  new  righteousness 
by  faith.     How  is  this  consistent  with  the  justice  of  God  ? 

The  question  has  been  continually  in  the  Apostle's  mind.  It 
has  led  him  to  emphasize  more  than  once  the  fact  that  the  new 
tvayyi\iov  if  for  both  Jew  and  Greek,  is  yet  for  the  Jew  first  (i.  i6, 
ii.  9).  It  has  led  him  to  lay  great  stress  on  the  fact  that  the  Jews 
especially  had  sinned  (ii.  17).  Once  indeed  he  has  begun  to 
discuss  it  directly  (iii.  i);  'What  advantage  then  is  there  in  being 
a  Jew  ? '  but  he  postponed  it  for  a  time,  feeling  that  it  was  necessary 
first  to  complete  his  main  argument.  He  has  dwelt  on  the  fact 
that  the  new  way  of  salvation  can  be  proved  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (chap.  iv).  Now  he  is  at  liberty  to  discuss  in  full  the  question : 
How  is  this  conception  of  Christ's  work  consistent  with  the  fact  of 
the  rejection  of  the  Jews  which  it  seems  to  imply  ? 

The  answer  to  this  question  occupies  the  remainder  of  the 
dogmatic  portion  of  the  Epistle,  chaps.  ix-Ki,  generally  considered 
to  be  the  third  of  its  principal  divisions.  The  whole  section  may 
be  subdivided  as  follows:  in  ix.  6-29  the  faithfulness  and  justice  of 
God  are  vindicated;  in  ix.  30-x.  ai  the  guilt  of  Israel  is  proved; 
in  chap,  xi  St.  Paul  shows  the  divine  purpose  which  is  being  fulfilled 
and  looks  forward  prophetically  to  a  future  time  when  Israel  will 
be  restored,  concluding  the  section  with  a  description  of  the  Wisdom 
of  God  as  far  exceeding  all  human  speculation. 

Marcion  seems  to  haTe  omitted  the  whole  of  this  chapter  with  the  possible 
exception  of  tv.  i  -3.  TerU  who  passes  from  viii.  11  to  x.  a  says  mU*  tt 
kit  amplissimum  abruptum  intercisa*  serif  turtu  {Adp.  Mart.  v.  14).  See 
Zahn,  Gesch.  dts  N.  T.  Kanom  p.  518. 

L  We  notice  that  there  is  no  grammatical  coimezion  with  the 
preceding  chapter.  A  new  point  is  introduced  and  the  sequence 
of  thought  is  gradually  made  apparent  as  the  argument  proceeds. 
Perhaps  there  has  been  a  pause  in  writing  the  Epistle,  the  amanu- 
ensis has  for  a  time  suspended  his  labours.  We  notice  also  that 
St.  Paul  does  not  here  follow  his  general  habit  of  stating  the 
subject  he  is  going  to  discuss  (as  he  does  for  example  at  the 
beginning  of  chap,  iii),  but  allows  it  gradually  to  become  evident. 
He  naturally  shrinks  from  mentioning  too  definitely  a  fact  which  is 
to  him  so  full  of  sadness.  It  will  be  only  too  apparent  to  what  he 
refers;  and  tact  and  delicacy  both  forbid  him  to  define  it  more 
exactly. 

dXi^Ociaf  \hfia  iv  Xpior^:  'I  speak  the  truth  in  Christ,  as  one 
united  with  Christ ';  of.  a  Cor.  ii.  17  aXX'  i»s  *$  tiXncpivdas,  dXX'  «h 

M  0«ov,  KaTfyavn  d«ov  tp  Xfiiar^  \aX.ovun>:   xii.  1 9.     St.  Paul  haS  jUSt 


IX.  1,  1.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  937 

described  that  anion  with  Christ  which  will  make  any  form  of  sin 
impossible;  cf.  viii.  i,  lo;  and  the  reference  to  this  union  gives 
solemnity  to  an  assertion  for  which  it  will  be  dijQBcult  to  obtain  full 
credence. 

ofi  4'eu^of<^<u.  A  Pauline  expression.  ■  Tim.  ii.  7  aKi)6tm»  X«yw, 
ov  ^tiiofiai:  a  Cor.  xi.  31 ;  Gal.  i.  to. 

7Ufi|tapTupou<n|s:  cf.  ii.  15 ;  viii.  16.  The  conscience  is  personified 
so  as  to  give  the  idea  of  a  second  and  a  separate  witness.  Cf. 
Oecumenius  ad  loc,  fiiya  6*\ti  ttirtip,  816  npoobonoul  r^  in(TTtv6rJ¥ai, 
rpetf  €Tri<p€p6ftepog  (idprvpaty  t6p  XpurT6p,  ri  'Aytoy  Ili/cv^ta,  Ka\  ri}v  iavTOv 
wvti8ri(rip. 

w  rii'cufian  'AyCy  with  ovixfiaprvpovarjs.  St.  Paul  adds  further 
solemnity  to  his  assertion  by  referring  to  that  union  of  his  spirit 
with  the  Divine  Spirit  of  which  he  had  spoken  in  the  previous 
chapter.      Cf.  viii.  16  avr6  to  Hvfvfta  a-vfiftaprvptl  t«  nvtifxari  r)n»p. 

St.  Paul  begins  with  a  strong  assertion  of  the  truth  of  his 
statement  as  a  man  does  who  is  about  to  say  something  of  the 
truth  of  which  he  is  firmly  convinced  himself,  although  facts  and 
the  public  opinion  of  his  countrymen  might  seem  to  be  against 
him.  Cf.  Chrys.  ad  loc.  wportpop  ii  dia^e^aiovnu  W€p\  &p  fifXXei 
Xtytip"  inrtp  n-oXXoir  iBot  rroifii*  vrap  /icXXoxri  rt  Xry«y  wapa  rols  iroXXoit 
ant<TTovfji(vop  luu  virip  oS  axf)6Spa  iavrovs  ctcri  ircfrcdcorvf. 

2.  8ti  :  '  that,'  introducing  the  subordinate  sentence  dependent  on 
che  idea  of  assertion  in  the  previous  sentence.  St.  Paul  does  not 
mention  directly  the  cause  of  his  grief,  but  leaves  it  to  be  inferred 
from  the  next  verse. 

Xumi  (which  is  opposed  to  xop<>  Jn*  zvi.  20)  appears  to  mean 
grief  as  a  state  of  mind ;  it  is  rational  or  emotional :  dSunr)  on  the 
other  hand  never  quite  loses  its  physical  associations ;  it  implies 
the  anguish  or  smart  of  the  heart  (hence  it  is  closely  connected  with 
fg  Kopdtfi)  which  is  the  result  of  Xvinp. 

With  the  grief  of  St  Paal  for  his  eoantiymen,  we  mnj  compate  the  grief 
of  a  Jew  writing  after  the  fall  of  Jernsalem,  who  feels  both  the  misfortune 
and  the  sin  of  his  people,  and  who  like  St.  Paul  emphasizes  his  sorrow  bj 
enumerating  their  close  relationship  to  God  and  their  ancestral  pride : 
4  Ezra  viii.  15-18  tt  nutu  duens  duam,  d*  omni  komins  tu  magis  sets,  de 
populo  amttm  tuo,  ob  qutm  doUo,  tt  de  haertditate  tua,  propter  quam  lugeo,  et 
propUr  ItraH,  propter  qu$m  tristis  sum,  et  de  semine  Jacob,  propter  quad 
conturbor.  Ibid.  x.  6-8  non  vides  luctum  nostrum  et  quae  nobis  contigerunt  ? 
quoniam  Sion  mater  nostra  omnium  in  tristitia  centristatur,  et  humilitate 
humiliata  est,  et  luget  ualidissime .  .  .  21-33  vides  enim  quoniam  sanctifi- 
catio  nostra  deserta  effecta  est,  et  altare  nostrum  demolitum  est,  et  templum 
nostrum  destructum  est,  et  psalterium  nostrum  humiliatum  est,  et  hymnus 
master  conticuit,  et  exsultatio  nostra  dissoluta  est,  et  lumen  candelabri  nostri 
uctinctum  est,  et  area  testamenti  nostri  direpta  est.  Apoc.  Baruch.  xxxv.  3 
quomodo  enim  ingemiscam  super  Sione,  et  quomode  lugebo  super  lerusalemt 
quia  in  loco  isto  uH  prostratus  turn  nmmc,  olim  summus  saterdos  offerebed 
tiflotioMi!  jMnttttt. 


22$  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  & 

8.  This  verse  which  is  introduced  by  ydp  does  not  give  the 
reason  of  his  grief  but  the  proof  of  his  sincerity. 

tjoxtJiAUK :  'the  wish  was  in  my  mind'  or  perhaps  'the  prayer 
was  in  my  heart,'  St.  Paul  merely  states  the  fact  of  the  wish 
without  regard  to  the  conditions  which  made  it  impossible.  Cf.  Lft. 
on  Gal.  iv.  20  'The  thing  is  spoken  of  in  itself,  prior  to  and 
independently  of  any  conditions  which  might  aflFect  its  possibility.' 
See  also  Acts  xxv.  2  a,  and  Burton,  Af.  and  7!  §  33. 

d»'<i0€jio:  'accursed,'  'devoted  to  destruction.'  The  word  wat 
originally  used  with  the  same  meaning  as  dvddrffta  (of  which  it  was 
a  dialectic  variation,  see  below), '  that  which  is  oflfered  or  consecrated 
to  God.'  But  the  translators  of  the  Old  Testament  required  an 
expression  to  denote  that  which  is  devoted  to  God  for  destruction,  and 
adopted  dvadefia  as  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  D^n :  see  Levit.  xxvii. 

28,  29  n'O"  Se  dvddefia  t  cav  dvaQji  avdpmnot  r^  Kvpitf  .  .  .  ovic  afrodoxrerai 
ovi)(  \vrpo)(T(Tai  .  .  .  Koi  wdv  o  idv  dvaTtBrj  ditb  T&v  dvdpannv  ov  Xvrpud^- 
o-«Tat,  dXKa  davdria  6avaT<n6rj(TtTcu :  Deut.  vU.  a6 ;  Josh.  vi.  fj  Ka\  iarcu 
^  iroXtr  dvddefia,  airr^  nai  ndvra  ova  iarip  iv  airrj,  Kvpiif  vc^aad.  And 
with  this  meaning  it  is  always  used  in  the  New  Testament :  Gal.  L 
8,  9 ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  a  a.  The  attempt  to  explain  the  word  to  mean 
'excommunication'  from  the  society — a  later  use  of  the  Hebrew  in 
Rabbinical  writers  and  the  Greek  in  ecclesiastical — arose  from 
a  desire  to  take  away  the  apparent  profanity  of  the  wish. 

There  is  some  doubt  and  has  been  a  good  deal  of  discnstion  at  to  the 

distinction  in  meaning  between  dvaet/ia  and  iviOrj/M.  It  was  originally 
dialectic,  dvaOrj/M  being  the  Attic  form  (dvdOrjfM  drTiKUfs,  ivdOtpa  iWtjviicSit 
Moeris,  p.  28)  and  dvdOtfta  being  found  as  a  substitute  in  non-Attic  works 
{Anth.  F.  6.  162,  C.I.G.  2693d  and  other  mstances  are  quoted  by  the 
Dictionaries).  The  Hellenistic  form  was  the  one  naturally  used  by  the 
writers  of  the  LXX,  and  it  gradually  became  confined  to  the  new  meaning 
attached  to  the  word,  but  the  distinction  seems  never  to  have  become 
certain  and  MSS.  and  later  writers  often  confuse  the  two  words.  In  the 
LXX  (^although  Hatch  and  Redpath  make  no  distinction)  our  present  terts 
seem  to  preserve  the  difference  of  the  two  word*.  The  only  doubtful  passage 
is  a  Mace.  ii.  13;  here  A  reads  dvdOtfjui  where  we  should  expect  dviOrj/M, 
but  V  ^the  only  other  MS.  quoted  by  Swete)  and  the  authorities  in  Holmes 
and  Parsons  have  dv&drjfia.  In  the  N.T.  dvdOrjfui  occurs  once,  Ltilce  zxi.  5, 
and  then  correctly  (but  the  MSS.  vary,  dvdOrjfia  B  L^  avdOtiM.  K  A  D).  The 
Fathers  often  miss  the  distinction  and  explain  the  two  words  as  identical : 
so  Ps.-Just.  Quaest.  et  Rtsp.  lai ;  Theod.  on  Rom.  ix.  3,  and  Suidas;  they 
are  distinguished  in  Chrys.  on  Rom.  ix.  3  as  quoted  by  Snidas,  but  not  in 
Field's  ed.  No  certain  instance  is  quoted  oidvdQr]pa.  for  dvadf^xa,  bot  dvdQtim 
could  be  and  was  used  dialectically  for  dvkQrnt.a.  On  the  word  generally 
see  esp.  Trench  Syn.  i.  5  5  ;  Lft.  Gal.  i.  8 ;  Fri.  on  Rom.  ix.  3. 

ouTos  €Y«.  The  emphasis  and  position  of  these  words  emphasizes 
the  willingness  for  personal  sacrifice ;  and  they  have  still  more  force 
when  we  remember  that  St.  Paul  has  just  declared  that  nothing  in 
heaven  or  earth  can  separate  him  from  the  love  of  Christ.  Chryg. 
ad  loc.  Tt  Xryctr,   a>  Uaikt ;    itro  rov  X^motov  rov  mtBovftipoVf  oi  fu/n 


IX.  3,  4.]  THE    UNBELIEF    OF    ISRAEL  229 

TO^TOV   vOv  eijxv   CLvadefia  eivat.; 

dirb  ToO  XpLo-ToO:  'separated  from  the  Christ,'  a  pregnant  use 
of  the  preposition.  The  translation  of  the  words  as  if  they  were 
ivb  T.  X.  arises  from  a  desire  to  soften  the  expression. 

/card  ffdpKa:  cf.  iv.  I  'as  far  as  earthly  relations  are  concerned'; 
spiritually  St.  Paul  was  a  member  of  the  spiritual  Israel,  and  his 
kinsmen  were  the  dde\(poi  of  the  Christian  society. 

The  prayer  of  St.  Paul  is  similar  to  that  of  Moses:  Exod.  xxxii. 
32  'Yet  now,  if  thou  wilt  forgive  their  sin — ;  and  if  not,  blot  me, 
I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book  which  thou  hast  written.'  On  this 
Clem.  Rom.  hii.  5  comments  as  follows :  &  fjLeydXrjs  dydir-qs,  w  riKeib- 
rtp-ot  dvvnfpP\r)Tov,  wappi]<rtd(tTcu  Btpairav  wpos  Kvpiov,  atrcirat  acpttriy  t« 
w\ti6(i  ^  KM  fovrbv  i$dX.(i<l>6ijvai  fttr  avT&v  d^toi.  In  answer  to  those 
who  have  found  difficulties  in  the  passage  it  is  enough  to  say  with 
Prof.  Jowett  that  they  arise  from  'the  error  of  explaining  the 
language  of  feeling  as  though  it  were  that  of  reasoning  and 
feflection.' 

There  aie  one  or  two  slight  variations  of  reading  in  Tcr.  3,  airds  iyu  was 
placed  before  ivi$.  tTv.  by  C  K  L,  Vnlg.,  and  later  anthorities  with  T  R,  and 
VnS  (D  E  G)  snbstitnted  for  dv6  (K  A  £  C  &c.).  Both  Tariations  arise  from 
a  desire  to  modify  the  passage. 

4u  oZrir^s  claiK :  '  inasmuch  as  they  are.'  St.  Paul's  grief  for  Israel 
arises  not  only  from  his  personal  relationship  and  affection,  but 
also  from  his  remembrance  of  their  privileged  position  in  the  Divine 
economy. 

*lcrpaT)\rTai :  used  of  the  chosen  people  in  special  reference  to 
the  fact  that,  as  descendants  of  him  who  received  from  God  the 
name  of  Israel,  they  are  partakers  of  those  promises  of  which  it  was 
a  sign.     The  name  therefore  implies  the  privileges  of  the  race; 

cf.  £ph.  ii.  IS   dnrjWoTpimiJLfPOi  t^s  noXireias  roii  ^lirpaijX  Kcti  ^tvoi  twv 

iia6T]KS>v  TTjs  fTTayyfXiac :  and  as  such  it  could  be  used  metaphorically 
of  the  Christians  (6  'IvpafjX  rov  Qtoi  Gal.  vi.  16  ;  cf.  ver.  6  inf.) ;  a  use 
which  would  of  course  be  impossible  for  the  merely  national  designa- 
tion 'lovSatot. 

*  Israel '  is  the  title  used  in  contemporary  literature  to  express  the 
special  relations  of  the  chosen  people  to  God.     Ps.  Soi.  xiv.  3  on 

If  ft(p\s  Ktu  7)  KkrjpovofUa  rov  Qfov  fOTiv  6  'IcrparjX  :    Ecclus.  Xvii.  1 5  fifpts 

Kvpiov  'lapaijX  eoriV :  Jubilees  xxxiii.  18  '  For  Israel  is  a  nation  holy 
unto  God,  and  a  nation  of  inheritance  for  its  God,  and  a  nation  of 
priesthood  and  royalty  and  a  possession.'  Thus  the  word  seems  to 
have  been  especially  connected  with  the  Messianic  hope.  The 
Messianic  times  are  'the  day  of  gladness  of  Israel'  {Ps.  Sol.  x.  7), 
die  blessing  of  Israel,  the  day  of  God's  mercy  towards  Kia'  1 

(ib.  ZViL   5O1  5'    ItaKoptot  o    yiM^ftcwM   W  rait   fifitpais  iitfivaii   ISfiv    to 


ftJO  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMAMS  [IX  C 

iyoBk  'IvpaiiK  hr  mymrymy^  <f>v\ip,  A  irot^ovt  i  Gror.  Tayvvtu  A  Bt6t  M 
laparjX  ri  tKtot  avrov).  When  therefore  St.  Paul  use«  this  name  he 
reminds  his  readers  that  it  is  just  those  for  whose  salvation  above 
all,  according  to  every  current  idea,  the  Messiah  was  to  come,  who 
when  he  has  come  are  apparently  cut  ofif  from  all  share  in  the 
privileges  of  his  kingdom. 

utoOcffia :  '  the  adoption,'  '  status  of  an  adopted  son ' :  on  the 
origin  of  the  word  and  its  use  in  relation  to  Christian  privileges  see 
above,  Rom.  viii.  15.  Here  it  implies  that  relationship  of  Israel  to 
God  described  in  £zod.  iv.  22  radt  Xf-yct  Kvpiot  Yi6t  nparoTOKOi  fto» 
'lapnfjk  :  Deut.  xiv.  i ;  xxxii.  6  ;  Jer.  xxxi.  9  ;  Hos.  xi.  i.  %o  Jubilees 
i.  31  'I  will  be  a  Father  unto  them,  and  they  shall  be  My  children, 
and  they  shall  all  be  called  children  of  the  living  God.  And  every 
angel  and  every  spirit  will  know,  yea  they  will  know  that  these  are 
My  children,  and  that  I  am  their  Father  in  uprightneM  and 
in  righteousness  and  that  I  love  them.' 

ij  8<5|o :  '  the  visible  presence  of  God  among  His  people '  (see 
on  iii.  23).  W^a  is  in  the  LXX  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew 
nin^  Il23,  called  by  the  Rabbis  the  Shekinah  (W^af),  the 
bright  cloud  by  which  God  made  His  presence  known  on  earth ; 
cf.  Exod.  xvi.  10,  &c.  Hence  rh  kolWo^  rf;?  80^75  avroO  Ps.  Sol.  ii.  5, 
aitit  6p6vov  Ho^t  ib.  ver.  ao,  Wisd.  ix.  10,  imply  more  than  the  mere 
beauty  of  the  temple,  and  when  St.  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  2,  speaks  of 
i  Otis  TTjs  io^tjt  his  words  would  remind  his  hearers  of  the  visible 
presence  of  God  which  they  claimed  had  sanctified  Jerusalem  and  the 
temple.  On  late  Rabbmical  speculations  concerning  the  Shekinah 
see  Weber  AUsyn.  Theol.  p.  179. 

at  8i«di)Kai :  '  the  covenants,'  see  Hatch  Essays  oh  Biblical 
Greek,  p.  47.  The  plural  is  used  not  with  reference  to  the  two 
covenants  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian,  but  because  the  original 
covenant  of  God  with  Israel  was  again  and  again  renewed 
(Gen.  vi.  18;  ix.  9;  xv.  18;  xvii.  a,  7, 9 ;  Ex.  ii.  24).  Comp.  Ecclus. 

xliv.  1 1  fura  rov  anipftaTos  aiirStv  buxfitvt'i  ayc^i)  nXrjpovofiia,  ficyova  avrmp 
iv  rait  diaSrjKMS',   Wisdom  XViii.  2  2  Xoyy  Tor  mdXa^oi'Ta  vntra^fy,  opKovs 

nartpuv  Koi  iia6r)Kas  vnofivrjaat.  According  to  Irenaeus,  III.  xi.  ii 
(ed.  Harvey)  there  were  four  covenants :  nui  dta  toOto  rivaapts  ibo- 

Srjtray  Ka$o\iKa\  iiadrJKCU  r^  avBpttnorrjn'  fiia  nfv  rov  KaTaKkwfiov  rov 
N»(,  iirl  rov  ro^ov'  dtvrtpa  ii  rov  'A/3padfi,  rr<  rov  tnjfjitiov  TTJt  rrtpiTOfirjs' 
TpiTtj  Si  ^  vopo6«ria  nrt  rov  Mmvcrimt'  Ttrdprrf  di  if  rov  EvayycXuw,  dwk 
Toi)  Kvplov  fjpMP  'itjaov  Xpiaroi  *, 

The  Jews  believed  that  they  were  bound  to  God  and  that  God 
was  bound  to  them  by  a  covenant  which  would  guarantee  to  them 
His  protection  in  the  future.  According  to  St.  Paul  it  was  just 
those  who  were  not  botind  to  Him  by  a  covenant  who  would 
receive  the  Divine  protection.     On  the  idea  of  the  Covenant  and 

*  Ib  the  Latin  venian  the  kmt  covenants  ai*  Adam,  Noah,  Mows,  Christ 


IX.  4.  5.J  THE  UNBELIEF  OF   ISRAEL  J)l 

its  practical  bearing  on  Jewish  life  see  SchQrer  Gtschickky  ii 
p.  388. 

^  KO)to0c(ria :  a  classical  word,  occurring  also  in  Philo.  *  The 
giving  of  the  law.'  '  The  dignity  and  glory  of  having  a  law  com- 
municated by  express  revelation,  and  amidst  circumstances  so  full 
of  awe  and  splendour.'     Vaughan. 

The  current  Jewish  estimation  of  the  Law  {6  v6ftot  6  xmapxw 
tit  ToK  alava  Baruch  iv.  i)  it  is  unnecessary  to  illustrate,  but  the 
point  in  the  mention  of  it  here  is  brought  out  more  clearly  if  we 
remember  that  all  the  Messianic  hopes  were  looked  upon  as  the 
reward  of  thdse  who  kept  the  Law.  So  Ps.  Sol.  xiv,  i  m<rr6s  Kipioi 
roit  ayaKm<Ti»  mrhv  iv  d\i}dtif  .  . .  rolr  troptvofifvois  iv  iiKaiotrvvjj  npouray- 
ftirttp  avrev,  cV  t>6ftta  a>«  rrcrctXaro  i}piu  tls  (utfjv  {]pS»v.      It  was  one  of 

the  paradoxes  of  the  situation  that  it  was  just  those  who  neglected 
the  Law  who  would,  according  to  St.  Paul's  teaching,  inherit  the 
promises. 

^  XarpcCa:  'the  temple  service.'  Heb. ix.  i,  6;  1  Mace.  ii.  19,  28. 
As  an  illustration  of  Jewish  opinion  on  the  temple  service  may  be 
quoted  Pirqe  Aboth,  i.  a  (Taylor,  p.  a6)  '  Shimeon  ha-^addiq 
was  of  the  remnants  of  the  great  synagogue.  He  used  to  say,  On 
three  things  the  world  is  stayed;  on  the  Thorah,  and  on  the 
Worship,  and  on  the  bestowal  of  kindnesses.'  According  to  the 
Rabbis  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Messianic  age  will  be 
a  revival  of  the  temple  services.     (Weber  Altsyn.  Theol.  p.  359.) 

ol  ^irayycXiai :  '  the  promises  made  in  the  O.  T.  with  special 
reference  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.'  These  promises  were  of 
course  made  to  the  Jews,  and  were  always  held  to  apply  particularly 
to  them.  While  sinners  were  to  be  destroyed  before  the  face  of 
the  Lord,  the  saints  of  the  Lord  were  to  inherit  the  promises 
(cf.  Pt.  Sol.  xii.  8) ;  and  in  Jewish  estimation  sinners  were  the 
gentiles  and  saints  the  chosen  people.  Again  therefore  the 
choice  of  terms  emphasizes  the  character  of  the  problem  to  be 
discussed.  See  note  on  i.  a,  and  the  note  of  Ryle  and  James  on 
P$.Sol.loc.cit.\  cf.  also  Heb. vi.ia;  xi.  13;  Gal.  iii.19;  1  Clem.  x.  a. 

ai  hiaQxiKtu  K  C  L,  Vnlg.  codd.  Boh.  &c.  has  been  corrected  into  ^  h<a9-i]itr) 
B  D  F  G,  Vnlg.  codd.  paw. ;  also  iirayytMou  into  tvayyt\ia  D  E  F  G,  Boh. 
Both  TahatioDs  are  probably  due  to  fancied  difficulties. 

6.  ol  iraWpes:  'the  patriarchs.'  Acts  iii.  13,  vii.  3a.  On  the 
'  merits '  of  the  patriarchs  and  their  importance  in  Jewish  theol  gy 
see  the  note  on  p.  330. 

ii  &¥  h  Xpurrdf  rd  Kn-rd  adpita.  Cf.  i  Clem,  xxxii.  2  c'l  airov  6 
Kvptcrs  'lijo-oCs  t6  Kara  a-dpKa.  6  Xp.  is  not  s.  personal  name,  but  must 
be  translated  '  the  Messiah.'  Not  only  have  the  Jews  been  united 
to  God  by  so  many  ties,  but  the  purpose  for  which  they  have  beer 
selected  has  been  fulfilled.  The  Messiah  has  come  forth  fronn 
them,  and  yet  they  have  been  rejected. 


a$%  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  5 

4  Ar  M  itArrmv  et6%,  k.t.X.  :  with  XfturrSt  (see  below), '  who  ii 
God  over  all  blessed  for  ever.'  navTtov  is  probably  neuter,  cf.  zi.  36. 
This  description  of  the  supreme  dignity  of  Him  who  was  on  His 
human  side  of  Jewish  stock  serves  to  intensify  the  conception  of 
the  privileged  character  of  the  Jewish  race. 


Tk^  Privilegis  of  Israel. 

By  this  enumeration  of  the  privileges  of  Israel  St.  Paul  fulfils  two 
purposes  in  his  argument.  He  gives  firstly  the  facts  which 
intensify  his  sorrow.  Like  the  writer  of  4  Ezra  his  grief  is 
heightened  by  the  remembrance  of  the  position  which  his  country- 
men have  held  in  the  Divine  economy.  Every  word  in  the  long 
list  calls  to  mind  some  link  which  had  united  them,  the  Chosen 
People,  with  God ;  every  word  reminds  us  of  the  glory  of  their  past 
history;  and  it  is  because  of  the  great  contrast  suggested  between 
the  destiny  of  Israel  and  their  actual  condition  thftt  his  grief  is  so 
profound. 

But  the  Apostle  has  another  and  more  important  thought  to 
emphasize.  He  has  to  show  the  reality  and  the  magnitude  of  the 
problem  before  him,  and  this  list  of  the  privileges  of  Israel  just  empha- 
sizes it.  It  was  so  great  as  almost  to  be  paradoxical.  It  was  this. 
Israel  was  a  chosen  people,  and  was  chosen  for  a  certain  purpose. 
According  to  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle  it  had  attained  this  end : 
the  Messiah,  whose  coming  represented  in  a  sense  the  consum- 
mation of  its  history,  had  appeared,  and  yet  from  any  share  in  the 
glories  of  this  epoch  the  Chosen  People  themselves  were  cut  off. 
AH  the  families  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed  in  Israel :  Israel 
itself  was  not  to  be  blessed.  They  were  in  an  especial  sense  the 
sons  of  God  :  but  they  were  cut  off  from  the  inheritance.  They 
were  bound  by  special  covenants  to  God :  the  covenant  had  been 
broken,  and  those  outside  shared  in  the  advantages.  The  glories  of 
the  Messianic  period  might  be  looked  upon  as  a  recompense  for 
the  long  years  of  suffering  which  a  faithful  adhesion  to  the  Law  and 
a  loyal  preservation  of  the  temple  service  had  entailed  :  the  bless- 
ings were  to  come  for  those  who  had  never  kept  the  Law.  The 
promises  were  given  to  and  for  Israel:  Israel  alone  would  not 
inherit  them. 

Such  was  the  problem.  The  pious  Jew,  remembering  the 
sufferings  of  his  nation,  pictured  the  Messianic  time  as  one  when 
these  should  all  pass  away ;  when  all  Israel — pure  and  without  stain 
— should  be  once  more  united;  when  the  ten  tribes  should  be 
collected  from  among  the  nations ;  when  Israel  which  had  suffered 
much  from  the  Gentiles  should  be  at  last  triumphant  over  them. 
All  this  he  expected.     The  Messiah  had  come:   and  Israel,  tht 


IX.  5.] 


THE  UNBELIEF  OF   ISRAEL  233 


Messiah's  own  people,  seemed  to  be  cut  off  and  rejected  from  the 
blessings  which  it  had  itself  prepared  for  the  world.  How  was  this 
problem  to  be  solved?  (Cf.  4  Ezra  xiii;  Schiirer,  Geschichte, 
ii.  452  sq.) 


Tk*  Punctuation  of  Rom.  ix.  5. 

mikliiml  XpitrU  ri  mtA  cri/uca,  •  i»  iwl  wivrwr,  Stit  tikoytjrh  clt  r«^ 
•nfcot'  ijtfy^. 

The  interpretation  of  Rom.  ix.  5  hai  probably  been  discussed  at  greater  Special 
length  than  that  of  any  other  verse  of  the  N.T.  Besides  long  notes  in  uQatnr 
Taiions  commentaries,  the  following  special  papers  may  be  mentioned: 
Schultz,  in  Jahrbucher  fur  dtuUcke  TkeologU,  1868,  vol.  xiii.  pp.  463-506; 
Grimm,  Zwth.,  1869,  pp.  311-333  ;  Harmsen,  ib.  1872,  pp.  510,  521  :  bat 
England  and  America  have  provided  the  fullest  discnssiona— by  Prof. 
Kennedy  and  Dr.  Gifford,  namely,  Tht  Divinity  of  Christ,  a  strmon 
preached  on  Christmas  Day,  1882,  before  the  University  of  Cambridge,  with 
an  appendix  on  Rom.  ix.  5  and  Titns  ii.  13,  by  Benjamin  Hall  Kennedy, 
D.D.,  Cambridge,  1883 ;  Caesarem  Appello,  a  letter  to  Dr.  Kennedy,  by 
Edwin  Hamilton  Gifford,  D.D.,  Cambridge,  1883;  and  Pauline  Christology, 
I.  Examination  of  Rom.  ix.  5,  being  a  rejoinder  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Gifford" t 
reply,  by  Benjamin  Hall  Kennedy,  D.D.,  Cambridge,  1883  :  by  Prof  Dwight 
and  Dr.  Eira  Abbot,  va  /.  £.  Exeg.  June  and  December,  188 1,  pp.  33-55, 
87-154 ;  and  1883,  pp.  90-113.  Of  these  the  paper  of  Dr.  Abbot  is  much 
the  most  exhaustive,  while  that  of  Dr.  Gifford  seems  to  ns  on  the  whole  to 
show  the  most  exegetical  power. 

Dismissing  minor  variations,  there  are  four  main  interpretations  (all  kA.  Altema^v 
them  referred  to  in  the  RV.)  which  have  been  suggested  :  interpreta 

(a)  Placing  a  comma  after  ff<i/)«o  and  referring  the  whole  passage  to  tions 
Christ    So  RV. 

{b)  Placing  a  full  stop  after  odpna  and  translating  '  He  who  is  God  over 
all  te  blessed  for  ever,'  or  '  is  blessed  for  ever.'    So  RV.  marg. 

(c)  With  the  same  punctuation  translating  '  He  who  is  over  all  is  God 
blessed  for  ever.'    RV.  marg. 

{d)  Placing  a  comma  after  a&pKa  and  a  full  stop  at  w&VTCjy,  *  who  is  over 
»1L     God  be  (or  is)  blessed  for  ever.'     RV.  marg. 

It  may  be  convenient  to  point  out  at  once  that  the  question  is  one  of  The  ori 
interpretation  and  not  of  criticism.     The  original  MSS.  of  the  Epistles  were  ginal  MS.'' 
almost  certamly  destitute  of  any  sort  of  punctuation.     Of  MSS.  of  the  first  without 
century  we  have  one  containing  a  portion  of  Isocrates  in  which  a  few  dots  punctna- 
are  used,  but  only  to  divide  words,  never  to  indicate  pauses  in  the  sense ;  in  tion. 
the  MS.  of  the  no\ireia  of  Aristotle,  which  dates  from  the  end  of  the  first 
or  beginning  of  the  second  century,  there  is  no  punctuation  whatever  except 
that  a  slight  space  is  left  before  a  quotation  :  this  latter  probably  is  as  close 
a  representation  as  we  can  obtain  in  the  present  day  of  the  original  form  of 
the  books  of  the  N.  T.     In  carefully  written  MSS.,  the  work  of  professional 
scnbes,  both  before  and  during  the  first  century,  the  more  important  pauses 
in  the  sense  were  often  indicated  but  lesser  pauses  rarely  or  never ;  and,  so 
far  as  our  knowledge  enables  us  to  speak,  in  roughly  written  MSS.  such  as 
were  no  doubt  those  of  the  N.T.,  there  is  no  punctuation  at  all  until  about 
the  third  century.    Our  present  MSS.  (which  begin  in  the  fourth  century^ 
do  not  therefore  represent  an  early  tradition.    If  there  were  any  ♦raditional 
punctuation  we  should  have  to  seek  it  rather  in  early  versions  or  in  second 
aBd  third  century  Fathers :  the  punctuation  of  the  MSS.  if  interesting  is 
the  Uatoiy  of  iateipreUtitnt,  but  hu  no  ether  ndac 


»S4 


EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS 


[IX.  a. 


Htstctf  at  The  history  of  the  interpretation  must  be  passed  oyer  somewhat  csnorily. 

the  fajve».  For  our  earliest  evidence  we  should  naturally  turn  to  the  older  versions,  bat 

pretatioo.         these  seem  to  labour  under  the  same  obscority  as  the  originaL     It  is  howsvcc 
(i)  Th«  probably  true  that  the  traditional  interpretation  of  all  of  them  ii  to  apply  the 

Versiocia.  doaology  to  Christ. 

'a )  The  About  most  of  the  Fathers  however  there  is  no  doubt     An  immense  pie> 

Fatiiers.  ponderance  of  the  Christian  writers  ot  the  first  eight  centuries  refer  the  word 

to  Christ.  This  is  certainly  the  case  with  Irenaens,  Natr.  III.  rvii.  »,  ed. 
Harvey;  Tertnllian,  j4dv.  Prax.  13,  15;  Hippolytus,  Cont.  Noct.  6  (ct 
Gifford,  op.  (it.  p.  60)  ;  Novatian.  Trin.  13 ;  Cyprian,  Tut.  ii.  6,  ed.  Hartel ; 
Syn.  Ant.  adv.  Paul.  Sam.  in  Ronth,  Pel.  Saerae,  iii,  391,  293 ;  Athanasius^ 
C»nt.  Arimn.  L  iii.  10;  Epiphanius.  Ha^.  Irii.  a,  9,  ed.  Oehler;  Basil, 
Adv.  Eumm.  iv.  p.  aSa  ;  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Adv.  Eutum.  11 ;  Chrysostom, 
Horn,  ad  Rom.  ivi.  3,  <Ssc. ;  Theodoret,  Ad  Rom.  iv.  p.  100 ;  Angustine,  Dt 
Trinitate,  it  13 ;  Hilarius,  Dt  Trinitatt,  viii.  37,  38 ;  Ambrosius,  Dt  Spiriin 
Sancto,  L  3.  46 ;  Hieronymus,  Ep.  CXXI.  ad  Algat.  Qn.  ix ;  Cyril  AL,  Cont. 
M.  X.  pp.  337,  338.  It  is  true  also  of  Origen  {im  Pom.  vii.  13)  if  we  may 
trust  Kufinus'  Latin  translation  (the  subject  has  been  discussed  at  length 
by  Gifford,  op.  cit.  p.  3'  :  Abbot,/,  B.  Extg.  1883,  p.  103;  WH.  ad  iot.). 
Moreover  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  conclusion  was  arrived  at  on  dogmatic 
grounds.  The  passage  is  rarely  cited  in  controversy,  and  the  word  e«<5s  was 
eiven  to  our  Lord  by  many  sects  who  refused  to  ascribe  to  him  full  divine 
noQours,  as  the  Gnostics  of  the  second  century  and  the  Arians  of  the  fourth. 
On  the  other  hand  this  was  a  useful  text  to  one  set  of  heretics,  the  Sabellians ; 
and  it  is  significant  that  Hippolytus,  who  has  to  explain  that  the  words  do 
Bot  favour  Sabellianism,  never  appears  to  think  of  taking  theaa  in  any 
other  way. 

The  strongest  evidence  againct  the  reference  to  Christ  is  that  of  the  Icsuling 
oncial  MSS.  Of  these  K  has  no  punctuation,  A  undoubtedly  puts  a  point 
after  aapKa,  and  also  leaves  a  slight  space.  The  punctuation  of  this  chapter 
U  careful,  and  certainly  by  the  original  hand ;  bet  as  there  is  a  similar  point 
and  space  between  Xptarov  and  vrrip  in  ver.  3,  a  point  between  aipxa  and 
dtrtyfs,  and  another  between  'lcrpai}\iT(u  and  aii',  there  is  no  reason  as  far  as 
punctuation  is  concerned  why  i  wv  should  not  refer  to  Uptards  as  much  ti 
MTicts  does  to  i5(K<puiv.  *  fi  has  a  colon  after  aapna,  but  leaves  no  space, 
while  there  is  a  space  left  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  The  present  colon  is 
however  certainly  not  by  the  first  hand,  and  whether  it  covers  an  earlitf 
stop  or  not  cannot  be  ascertained.  C  has  a  stop  after  aipna.  The  difference 
between  the  MSS.  and  the  Fathers  has  not  been  accounted  for  and  is  certainly 
corions. 

Against  ascribing  these  words  to  Christ  some  patristic  evidence  has 
been  found.  Origen  (Rufinus)  ad  lot.  tells  as  there  were  certain  pers(HU 
who  thought  the  ascription  of  the  word  ©«<5f  to  Christ  difficult,  for  St.  PwB^ 
had  already  called  him  vl^t  B*ov.  The  long  series  of  extracts  naade  by 
Wetstein  ad  lot.  stating  that  the  words  i  iw\  wdvTwv  Htus  cannot  be  used  ot 
the  Son  are  not  to  the  point,  for  the  Son  here  is  called  not  6  ivi  Trarron'  %t6t, 
but  €wi  viWTaiv  ee<5s,  and  some  of  the  writers  he  quotes  expressly  interpret  the 
passage  of  the  Christ  elsewhere.  Again,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  {Cont.  Jul.  x. 
p.  327)  quotes  the  Emperor  Julian  to  the  effect  that  St.  Paul  never  calif 
Chrii>t  Bt6s,  but  although  this  is  certainly  an  interesting  statement,  thk 
passage,  which  Cyril  quoies  against  him,  might  easily  have  been  overlooked. 
Two  writers,  and  two  only,  Photius  {Cont.  Man.  iii.  14)  and  Diodrnw 
(Cramer's  Catena,  p.  162),  definitely  ascribe  the  words  to  the  FatJier. 
The  modem  criticism  of  the  passage  began  with  Erasmus,  wbo  poiated 

*  For  information  oa  this  pcJat  and  also  00  the  panctnation  of  the  olda 
paoyri,  we  are  mtich  fcidrbtod  to  Mr.  F.  G.  KenTon,  «f  th»  Britiah  Moaetua. 


•:X)Tlie 


4   Modem 

71  'dtm. 


ex.  S.]  THK  UNBEUEF  OF  ISRAEL  «35 

oat  that  thert  were  certainly  three  altematiTe  interpretationi  possibk,  and 
that  as  there  was  so  mach  doabt  about  the  Terse  it  shonld  nerer  be  used 
•gainst  heretics.  He  himself  wavers  in  his  opinion.  In  the  Commentary 
he  seems  to  refer  the  words  to  the  Father,  in  the  Paraphrase  (a  later  bat 
popular  work)  he  certainly  refers  them  to  the  Son.  Socinus,  it  is  interesting 
to  note,  was  convinced  by  the  position  of  (i\oyt)Tit  (see  below)  that  the 
soitence  must  refer  to  Chnst.  From  Erasmus'  time  onwards  opinions  have 
varied,  and  have  been  influenced,  as  was  natural,  largely  by  the  dogmatic 
opinions  of  the  writer ;  and  it  seems  hardly  worth  while  to  quote  long  lists  of 
names  on  either  side,  when  the  question  is  one  which  must  be  decided  not  bf 
authority  or  theological  opinion  but  by  considerations  of  language. 

The  discussion  which  follows  will  be  divided  into  Uirec  heads: — 
(l)  Grammar ;  (a)  Sequence  of  thought ;  (3)  Pauline  usage. 

The  first  words  that  attract  onr  attentioB  are  ri  tcard  aapica,  and  a  parallel  The  gram 
oaturally  suggests  itself  with  Rom.  t.  3,  4.     As  there  St  Paul  describes  the  mar  of  thin 
human  descent  from  David,  bat  expressly  limits  it  xari  a&pKa,  and  then  passage. 
in  contrast  describes  his  Divine  descent  tcari  wtxifia  iyiwaivrji ;  so  here  the  (i)  r^Karc 
course  of  the  argument  having  led  him  to  lay  stress  on  the  human  birth  of  ffifma. 
Christ  as  a  Jew,  he  would   naturally  correct   a  one-sided  statement  by 
limiting  that  descent  to  the  earthly  relationship  and  then  describe  the  true 
nature  of  Him  who  was  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews.     He  would  thus  enhance 
the  privileges  of  his  Cellow-conntrymen,  and  put  a  culminating  point  to  his 
argument.    r6  «ard  aipga  leads  us  to  expect  an  antithesis,  and  we  find  just 
what  we  should  have  expected  ia  i  i/v  Iwl  vdyrvr  S(6s. 

Is  this  legitimate?  It  has  been  argued  first  of  all  that  the  proper  anti- 
thesis to  aip(  is  wvtS/im.  But  this  objection  is  invalid.  @t6s  u  in  a  coih 
siderable  number  of  cases  used  in  contrast  to  aip(  (Luke  iii.  6  ;  i  Cor.  i.  39 ; 
Col.  iii.  32;  Philemon  16;  a  Chron.  xxxii.  8;  Ps.  Iv  [Ivi].  5;  Jer.  xrvL  5; 
Dan.  iL  1 1 ;  cf.  Gifford,  p.  40,  to  whom  we  owe  these  instances). 

Again  it  is  argued  that  the  expreuion  ri  icarci  aipxa  as  opposed  to  Mori 
aapita  precludes  the  possibility  of  such  a  contrast  in  words.  While  ttard 
odpKa  allows  the  expression  of  a  contrast,  ri  «ard  aipita  would  limit  the 
idea  of  a  sentence  but  would  not  allow  the  limitation  to  be  expressed.  This 
statement  again  is  incorrect.  Instances  are  found  in  which  there  is  as 
expressed  contrast  to  such  limitations  introduced  with  the  aiticle  (see 
Gifford,  p.  39 ;  he  quotes  Isocrates,  p.  33  e ;  Demosth.  C0ti/.  Eubul.  p.  1399, 
L14). 

Bat  although  neither  of  these  objections  is  valid,  it  is  perfectly  true  tha^ 
neither  card  c&pKa  nor  r6  ««rd  9&pKa  demands  an  expressed  antithesis 
(Rom.  iv.  I  ;  Clem.  Rom.  L  33).  The  expression  rb  Kara  aapna  cannot 
therefore  be  quoted  as  decisive ;  but  probably  any  one  reading  the  passage 
for  the  first  time  would  be  led  by  these  words  to  expect  some  contrast  and 
would  naturally  take  the  words  that  follow  as  a  contrast. 

The  next  words  concerning  which  there  has  been  much  discussion  are  b  &y.  s)  i  t^ 
It  is  argued  on  the  one  hand  that  6  &v  is  naturally  relatival  in  character  and 
equivalent  to  01  can,  and  in  support  of  this  statement  3  Cor.  xi.  31  is  quoted : 
b  ©€tfj  Kol  iTOT^p  Tov  Kvpiov  'iTjaov  oTdtr,  b  iiv  (iXoyr/rbs  (Is  roiii  odaivas,  Sn 
ov  ifxiiiofuu — a  passage  which  is  in  some  respects  an  exact  parallel.  On  the 
other  hand  passages  are  quoted  in  which  the  words  do  not  refer  to  anything 
preceding,  such  as  Jn.  iii.  31  0  avouffty  ipxofievos  iirdyw  itdvrwv  iariv  b  iav  iu 
TTJs  yijs  fK  rijs  yrjs  iart,  icai  i»  r$»  7^1  A.aA«f :  and  ol  bvm  in  Rom.  viii.  5,  8. 
The  question  is  a  nice  one.  It  is  perfectly  true  that  b  &v  can  be  used  in  botk 
ways;  but  it  must  be  noticed  that  in  the  last  instances  the  form  of  the 
sentence  is  such  as  to  take  away  all  ambiguity,  and  to  compel  a  change  of 
subject  In  this  case,  as  there  is  a  noun  immediately  preceding  to  which  the 
words  would  naturally  refer,  as  there  is  no  sign  of  a  change  of  subject,  and 
■s  there  is  no  finite  verb  in  the  sentence  following,  an  ordinary  reader  would 
oiBsider  that  the  words  i  im  M  miarrw  9t6t  refer  to  what  pieoedes  odear 


•36  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  |^IX.  1. 

they  suggest  m  great  an  antithesis  to  his  mind  that  he  co&ld  not  refer  then 
to  Christ. 

But  further  than  this:  no  instance  seems  to  occur,  at  any  rate  in  the 
N.T.,  of  the  participle  Siv  being  used  with  a  prepositional  phrase  and  the 
noun  which  the  prepositional  phrase  qualifies.  If  the  noun  is  mentioned  the 
substantive  verb  becomes  unnecessary.  Here  t  M  nivruv  Scor  would  be 
the  correct  expression,  if  &f6t  is  the  subject  of  the  sentence ;  if  (Jf  is  added 
©«5i  must  become  predicate.  This  excludes  the  translation  (J>.)  '  He  who  is 
God  over  all  be  (or  is)  blessed  for  ever.'  It  still  leaves  it  possible  to  translate 
as  (^.)  '  He  who  is  over  all  is  God  blessed  for  ever,'  but  the  reference  to 
Xp<(rT(5r  remains  the  most  natural  interpretation,  unless,  as  stated  above,  the 
word  Q(6i  suggests  in  itself  too  great  a  contrast. 

It  has  thirdly  been  pointed  out  that  if  this  passage  be  an  ascription  of 
blessing  to  the  Father,  the  word  tvXoyqrot  would  naturally  come  first,  just 
as  the  word  '  Blessed  *  would  in  English.  An  examination  of  LXX  usage 
shows  that  except  in  cases  in  which  the  verb  is  expressed  and  thrown  forward 
(as  Ps.  cxii  [cxiii].  a  ttrj  rh  ovofta  Kvpiov  (iXoyrjfiiyov)  this  is  almost  in- 
nuriably  its  position.  But  Ae  rule  is  clearly  only  an  empirical  one,  and  in 
cases  in  which  stress  has  to  be  laid  on  some  special  word,  it  may  be  and  is 
broken  (ct  Ps.  Sol.  viii.  40,  41).  As  6  i/v  iirl  vavraiv  0f6t  if  it  does  not  refer 
to  6  XfHorSt  must  be  in  very  marked  contrast  with  it,  there  would  be  a  special 
emphasis  on  the  words,  and  the  perversion  of  the  natural  order  becomes 
possible.  These  considerations  prevent  the  argument  from  the  position  of 
ti)Koyr]T6s  being  as  decisive  as  some  have  thought  it,  but  do  not  prevent  the 
balance  of  evidence  being  against  the  interpretation  as  a  doxology  referring 
to  the  Father. 

The  result  of  an  examination  of  the  grammar  of  the  passage  makes  it  clear 
that  if  St.  Paul  had  intended  to  insert  an  ascription  of  praise  to  the  Fathei 
we  should  have  expected  him  to  write  (vKoyrjTos  fh  roiis  alwvas  d  iwl  nirram 
9t6s.  If  the  translation  (d.^  suggested  above,  which  leaves  the  stop  at 
wAvToiv,  be  accepted,  two  difficulties  which  have  been  urged  are  avoided, 
bat  the  awkwardness  and  abruptness  of  the  sudden  Sds  *v\oyT)T6t  (Is  roxit 
tlSiyat  make  this  interpretation  impossible.  We  have  seen  that  the  position 
of  *v\ofr]r6i  makes  a  doxology  (b.)  improbable,  and  the  insertion  of  the 
participle  makes  it  very  unnatural.  The  grammatical  evidence  is  in  favour 
of  (a.),  i.e.  the  reference  of  the  words  to  6  Xpiaros,  unless  the  words  i  irv  *« 
mAvToiv  06(5r  contain  in  themseWes  so  marked  a  contrast  that  they  could  not 
possibly  be  so  referred. 

We  pass  next  to  the  connexion  of  thought.  Probably  not  many  will 
doubt  that  the  interpretation  which  refers  the  passage  to  Christ  (a.)  admirably 
suits  the  context.  St.  Paul  is  enumerating  the  privileges  of  Israel,  and  as  the 
highest  and  last  privilege  he  reminds  his  readers  that  it  was  from  this  Jewish 
stock  after  all  that  Christ  in  His  human  nature  had  come,  and  then  in  ordef 
to  emphasiie  this  he  dwells  on  the  exalted  character  of  Him  who  came 
according  to  the  flesh  as  the  Jewish  Messiah.  This  gives  a  perfectly  clear 
and  intelligible  interpretation  of  the  passage.  Can  we  say  the  same  of  aay 
interpretation  which  applies  the  words  to  the  Father  ? 

Those  who  adopt  this  latter  interpretation  have  generally  taken  the  woids 
as  a  doxology,  '  He  that  is  over  all  God  be  blessed  for  ever,'  or  '  He  that  is 
God  over  all  be  blessed  for  ever.'  A  natural  criticism  that  at  once  arises  is, 
how  awkward  the  sudden  introduction  of  a  doxology  !  how  inconsistent  with 
the  tone  of  sadness  which  pervades  the  passage !  Nor  do  the  reasons  alleged 
in  support  of  this  interpretation  really  avoid  the  difficult);  It  is  quite  true 
of  course  that  St.  Paul  was  full  of  gratitude  for  the  privileges  of  his  race  and 
especially  for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  but  that  u  not  the  thought  in  his 
Bind.  His  feeling  is  one  of  sadness  and  of  failure:  it  is  necessary  for  him 
to  argue  that  the  promise  of  God  has  not  failed.  Nor  again  does  a  rciereaee 
Id  Rom.  L  35  snpport  the  intcrpretatio&.    It  is  qvite  tHM  that  there  we  ha?* 


IX.  6.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  »$f 

a  doxology  in  tiie  midst  of  a  passage  of  great  sadness ;  bat  like  »  Cor.  ti.  3I 
that  is  an  instance  of  the  ordinary  Rabbinic  and  oriental  asage  of  adding  an 
ascription  of  praise  when  the  name  of  God  has  been  introdnced.  That  wonld 
not  apply  in  the  present  case  where  there  b  no  previous  mention  of  the  name 
of  God.  It  is  impossible  to  say  that  a  doxology  conld  not  stand  here ;  it  te 
certainly  true  that  it  would  be  unnatural  and  out  of  place. 

So  strongly  does  Dr.  Kennedy  feel  the  difficulties  both  exegetical  and  Prot 
grammatical  of  taking  these  words  as  a  blessing  addressed  to  the  Father,  Kennedy's 
that  being  unable  to  adopt  the  reference  to  Christ,  he  considers  that  they  interpreta> 
occur  here  as  a  strong  assertion  of  the  Divine  unity  introdnced  at  this  tioo. 
place  in  order  to  conciliate  the  Jew8 :  *  He  who  is  over  all  is  God  blessed 
for  ever.'    It  is  difficult  to  find  anything  in  the  context  to  support  this 
opinion,  St.  Paul's  object  is  hardly  to  conciliate  onbelieving  Jews,  but  to 
solve  the  difficulties  of  believers,  nor  does  anything  occur  in  either  the 
previous  or  the  following  verses  which  might  be  supposed   to  make  an 
assertion  of  the  unity  of  God  either  necessary  or  apposite.    The  inter* 
pretation  fails  by  ascribing  too  great  subtlety  to  the  Apostle. 

Unless  then  Pauline  nsnge  makes  it  absolutely  impossible  to  refer  the  Pauline 
expressions  B(6$  and  inl  ndvTwv  to  Christ,  or  to  address  to  Him  such  uag& 
a  doxology  and  make  use  in  this  connexion  of  the  decidedly  strong  word  (i)  9t6k 
*i\oyr}T6s,  the  balance  of  probability  is  in  favour  of  referring  the  passage 
tp  Him.  What  then  is  the  usage  of  St.  Paul?  The  question  has  been 
somewhat  obscured  on  both  sides  by  the  attempt  to  prove  that  St.  Paul 
could  or  could  not  have  used  these  terms  of  Christ,  i.  e.  by  making  the 
difficulty  theological  and  not  linguistic.  St.  Paul  always  looks  upon  Christ 
as  being  although  subordinate  to  the  Father  at  the  head  of  all  creatioa 
(i  Cor.  xi.  3 ;  xv.  a8 ;  Phil.  ii.  5-11 ;  CoL  L  i.^-ao),  and  this  would  quite 
justify  the  use  of  the  expression  iirl  mvroiy  of  Him.  So  also  if  St.  Paul  caa 
speak  of  Christ  as  tlKwv  rod  6cot)  (2  Cor.  iv.  4;  Col.  i.  15),  as  iv  fiopcp^  &eo3 
ivapX'^t  *°d  laa  %i^  (Phil,  ii  6),  he  ascribes  to  Him  no  lesser  dignity 
than  would  be  implied  by  B(6t  as  predicate.  The  question  rather  is  this : 
eras  9(6t  so  definitely  used  of  the  '  Father '  as  a  proper  name  that  it  could 
not  be  used  of  the  Son,  and  that  its  use  in  this  passage  as  definitely  points  to 
the  Father  as  would  the  word  ■aarqp  if  it  were  substituted?  The  most 
significant  passage  referred  to  ii  I  Cor.  xii.  4-6,  where  it  is  asserted  that  0c<$9 
is  as  much  a  proper  name  as  Kvptos  or  vytOfta  and  is  used  in  marked  distine- 
tion  to  Kvptos.  But  this  passage  surely  suggests  the  answer.  Kipiot  if 
clearly  used  as  a  proper  name  of  the  Son,  but  that  does  not  prevent  St.  Pad 
elsewhere  speaking  of  the  P'ather  as  Kifiot,  certainly  in  quotations  from  thft 
O.T.  and  probably  elsewhere  (i  Cor.  iii.  5),  nor  of  XpiorSs  as  irvcv/Oi 
(a  Cor.  iii.  16).  The  history  of  the  word  appears  to  be  this.  To  one 
brought  up  as  a  Jew  it  would  be  natural  to  use  it  of  the  Father  alone,  and 
hence  complete  divine  prerogatives  would  be  ascribed  to  the  Son  somewhat 
earlier  than  the  word  itself  was  used.  But  where  the  honour  was  given  the 
word  used  predicatively  wonld  soon  follow.  It  was  habitual  at  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century  as  in  the  Ignatian  letters,  it  is  undoubted  in  St  John 
where  the  Evangelist  is  writing  in  his  own  name,  it  probably  occurs 
Acts  XX.  a8  and  perhaps  Titus  ii.  14.  It  must  be  admitted  that  we  should  not 
expect  it  in  so  early  an  Epistle  as  the  Romans ;  but  there  is  no  impossibility 
either  in  the  word  or  the  ideas  expressed  by  the  word  occurring  so  early. 

So  again  with  regard  to  doxologies  and  the  use  of  the  term  (iXoyT]r4t.  (j)  Doxo* 
The  distinction  between  tiXoftjTSs  and  tiXoyrju^yos  which  it  is  attempted  to  logies  ad* 
make  cannot  be  sustained :  and  to  ascribe  a  doxology  to  the  Son  wonld  be  dressed  ttt 
a  practical  result  of  His  admittedly  divine  nature  which  would  gradually  Christ 
show  itself  in  language.     At  first  the  early  Jewish  usage  would  be  adhered 
to ;  gradually  as  the  dignitr  of  the  Messiah  became  realized,  a  change  wonld 
take  piacs  in  the  nse  of  words.    Hence  we  find  doxologies  appearing 
dcfinitelvia  later  bodu  of  llie  N.T.,  probably  in  a  Tin.  iv.  it^ttrtsinlyia 


i^S  BPISTLI  TO  THE   ROMAN5  [IX.  6-18. 

fUv.  V.  1 1  and  a  Pet  ih.  i8.  Again  we  can  auert  that  we  ahotild  not  expect 
k  in  to  earlj  an  Epistle  as  the  Romani,  bat,  as  Dr.  Liddoa  points  ont, 
t  Thess.  i.  i  a  implies  it  ai  docs  also  PhiL  ii.  5-8 ;  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  language  should  not  at  this  time  be  b^inning  to  adapt  iUelf  to  thecK 
logical  ideas  already  formed. 
CooQrfa  Thronghont  there  has  been  n*  argnment  which  we  hare  felt  to  be  qnite 

rioB.  coQclnsive,  bnt  the  resalt  of  oar  investigations  into  the  grammar  of  the 

sentence  and  the  drift  of  the  argnment  is  to  incline  us  to  the  belief  that  the 
words  would  natarally  refer  to  Christ,  unless  B(6s  is  so  definitely  a  proper 
name  that  it  wonld  imply  a  contrast  in  itself.  We  have  seen  that  that  is  not 
•o.  Even  if  St.  Paul  did  not  elsewhere  use  the  word  of  the  Christ,  yet  it 
certainly  was  so  used  at  a  not  much  later  period.  St.  Paul's  phraseology  is 
■ever  fixed ;  he  had  no  dogmatic  reason  against  so  using  it.  In  these  circum- 
stances with  some  slight,  but  only  slight,  hesitation  we  adopt  the  first  alterna- 
tive and  translate  '  Of  whom  is  the  Christ  as  concerning  the  flesh,  wh»  U 
•rer  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.    Amen.' 


TH2S  EBJECTION  O^'  ISBABL  WOT  IITCOITSISTEWT 
WITH  THE  DIVINE  PEOMISES. 

IX.  6-18.  For  it  is  indeed  true.  With  all  these  privileges 
fsrael  is  yet  excluded  from  the  Messianic  promises. 

Now  in  the  first  place  does  this  imply  ^  as  has  been  urged, 
that  the  promises  of  God  have  been  broken  f  By  no  meant. 
The  Scriptures  show  clearly  that  physical  descent  is  net 
enough.  The  children  of  Ishmael  and  the  children  of  Esau, 
both  alike  descendants  of  Abraham  to  whom  the  promise  was 
given,  have  been  rejected.  There  is  then  no  breach  of  the 
Divine  promise^  if  God  refects  some  Israelites  as  He  has 
rejected  them. 

•Yet  in  spite  of  these  priTfleget  Israel  b  rejected.  Now  it 
lias  been  argued :  '  If  this  be  so,  then  the  Divine  word  has  failed. 
God  made  a  definite  promise  to  Israel.  If  Israel  is  rejected, 
that  promise  is  broken.'  An  examination  of  the  conditions  of 
the  promise  show  that  this  is  not  so.  It  was  never  intended 
that  all  the  descendants  of  Jacob  should  be  included  in  the  Israel 
<tf  privilege,  ^no  more  in  fact  than  that  all  were  to  share  the 
foil  rights  of  sons  of  Abraham  because  they  were  his  offspring. 
Two  instances  will  prove  that  this  was  not  the  Divine  intention. 
Take  first  the  words  used  to  Abraham  in  Gen.  xxi.  is  when  he 
cast  forth  Hagar  and  her  child :  '  In  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called.' 
These  words  show  that  although  there  were  then  two  kmu  oI 
AtHtiham.  one  only,  Isaac,  was  selected  to  be  the  heir,  through 


IZ.  6.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEI,  2^9 

iHiom  the  promise  wu  to  be  inherited.  *  And  the  general  conchi- 
sion  follows :  the  right  <rf  being  '  sons  of  God/  L  c  of  sharing  that 
adoption  of  which  we  spoke  above  as  one  of  the  privileges  of  Israel, 
does  not  depend  on  the  mere  accident  of  human  birth,  but  those 
born  to  inherit  the  promise  are  reckoned  by  God  as  the  descendants 
to  whom  His  words  apply.  •  The  salient  feature  is  in  fact  the  pro- 
mise, and  not  the  birth ;  as  is  shown  by  the  words  used  when  the 
promise  was  given  at  the  oak  of  Mamre  (Gen.  xviii.  lo)  *  At  this 
time  next  year  will  I  come  and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son.'  The 
promise  was  given  before  the  child  was  bom  or  even  conceived, 
and  the  child  was  bom  because  oi  the  promise,  not  the  promise 
given  because  the  child  was  bom. 

*"  A  second  instance  shows  this  still  more  clearly.  It  might  be 
argued  in  the  last  case  that  the  two  were  not  of  equal  parentage : 
Ishmael  was  the  son  of  a  female  slave,  and  not  of  a  lawful  wife : 
in  the  second  case  there  is  no  such  defect.  The  two  sons  of 
Isaac  and  Rebecca  had  the  same  father  and  the  same  mother: 
moreover  they  were  twins,  bom  at  the  same  time.  "  The  object 
was  to  exhibit  the  perfectly  free  character  of  the  Divine  action, 
that  purpose  of  God  in  the  world  which  works  on  a  principle  of 
selection  not  dependent  on  any  form  of  human  merit  or  any  con- 
vention of  human  birth,  but  simply  on  the  Divine  will  as  revealed 
in  the  Divine  call ;  and  so  before  they  were  born,  before  they  had 
done  anything  good  or  evil,  a  selection  was  made  between  the  two 
sons.  "From  Gen.  xxv.  S3  we  leam  that  it  was  foretold  to 
Rebecca  that  two  nations,  two  peoples  were  in  her  womb,  and  that 
the  elder  should  serve  the  younger.  God's  action  is  independent 
of  human  birth ;  it  is  not  the  elder  but  the  younger  that  is  selected. 
"  And  the  prophecy  has  been  fulfilled.  Subsequent  history  may 
be  sunmied  up  in  the  words  of  Malachi  (L  a,  3)  'Jacob  have 
I  loved,  and  Esau  have  I  hated.' 

6.  The  Apostle,  after  conciUating  his  readers  by  a  sh(xt  preface, 
now  passes  to  the  discussion  of  his  theme.  He  has  never  definitely 
stated  it,  but  it  can  be  inferred  from  what  he  has  said.  The  con- 
nexion in  thought  implied  by  the  word  8<  is  rather  that  of  passing 
to  a  new  stage  in  the  argument,  than  of  sharply  defined  opposition 
to  what  has  preceded.  Yet  there  is  some  contrast :  he  sighs  over 
the  fall,  yet  that  fidl  is  not  so  absolute  as  to  imply  a  break  in  God's 
purpose. 


440  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  6,  7. 

o6x  olo¥  8i  Jn :  'the  case  is  not  as  though.'  *  This  grief  o( 
mine  for  my  fellow  countrymen  is  not  to  be  understood  as  mean- 
ing.' Lipsius.  The  phrase  is  unique:  it  must  clearly  not  be 
interpreted  as  if  it  were  oix  vUw  tc ,  '  it  is  not  possible  that ' :  for  the 
T«  is  very  rarely  omitted,  and  the  construction  in  this  case  is 
always  with  the  infinitive,  nor  does  St.  Paul  want  to  state  what 
it  is  impossible  should  have  happened,  but  what  has  not  happened. 
The  common  ellipse  oix  ^»  affords  the  best  analogy,  and  the 
phrase  may  be  supposed  to  represent  w  rmovror  ii  tan  olop  in, 
(Win.  §  Ixiv.  1.6;  E.  T.  p.  746.) 

<K*^irTWK€K :  '  fallen  from  its  place,'  i.e.  perished  and  become  of  no 
effect    So  I  Cor.  xiii.  8  7  dydnri  oiitnort  ««rt»rr«  ( AV) ;  James  i.  II. 

i  \6yo%  ToG  0eou:  'the  Word  of  God,'  in  the  sense  of  'the 
declared  purpose  of  God,'  whether  a  promise  or  a  threat  or  a  de- 
cree looked  at  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Divine  consistency. 
This  is  the  only  place  in  the  N.  T.  where  the  phrase  occurs 
in  this  sense ;  elsewhere  it  is  used  by  St.  Paul  (a  Cor.  ii.  17; 
iv.  2  ;  s  Tim.  ii.  9  ;  Tit.  ii.  5),  in  Heb.  xiii.  7,  in  Apoc.  i.  9 ;  vi.  9 ; 
XX.  4,  and  especially  by  St.  Luke  in  the  Acts  (twelve  times)  to 
mean  '  the  Gospel '  as  preached  ;  once  (in  Mark  vii.  1 3),  it  seems 
to  mean  the  O.  T.  Scriptures ;  here  it  represents  the  O.  T.  phrase 
6  Xoyos  Tov  Kvpiov :  cf.  Is.  ZXXi.  2  Koi  i  Xoyor  avrov  (i.  e.  rov  Kvpiov)  ov 
ftrj  a6(TT)6ri. 

01  Ii  'lo-pa^X :  the  offspring  of  Israel  according  to  the  flesh,  the 
v\o\  'l(Tpar]\  of  ver.  2  7. 

oSroi  'lapaV]X.  Israel  in  the  spiritual  sense  (cf.  ver.  4  on  'ivpatjKiTot 
which  is  read  here  also  by  D  E  F  G,  Vulg.,  being  a  gloss  to  bring 
out  the  meaning),  the  'l<rpafj\  tov  eeov  of  Gal.  vi.  16,  intended  for 
the  reception  of  the  Divine  promise.  But  St.  Paul  does  not  mean 
here  to  distinguish  a  spiritual  Israel  (i.  e.  the  Christian  Church) 
from  the  fleshly  Israel,  but  to  state  that  the  promises  made  to  Israel 
might  be  fulfilled  even  if  some  of  his  descendants  were  shut  out 
from  them.  What  he  states  is  that  not  all  the  physical  descendants 
of  Jacob  are  necessarily  inheritors  of  the  Divine  promises  implied 
in  the  sacred  name  Israel.  This  statement,  which  is  the  ground 
on  which  he  contests  the  idea  that  God's  word  hat  failed,  he  has 
now  to  prove. 

7.  ou8*  8ti.  The  grammatical  connexion  of  this  passage  with 
the  preceding  is  that  of  an  additional  argument ;  the  logical  con- 
nexion is  that  of  a  proof  of  the  statement  just  made.  St.  Paul 
could  give  scriptural  proof,  in  the  case  of  descent  from  Abraham, 
of  what  he  had  asserted  in  the  case  of  descent  from  Jacob,  and  thus 
establish  his  fundamental  principle — that  inheritance  of  the  pro- 
mises is  not  the  necessary  result  of  Israelitish  descent. 

mripfia  'APpadfi.  The  word  aneppa  is  used  in  this  verse,  first  of 
natural  seed  or  descent,  then  of  seed  according  to  the  promise. 


IX   7.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  24 1 

Both  senses  occur  together  in  Gen.  xxi.  t»,  13;    and  both  are 

found  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.,  Gal.  iii.  29  «  di  t/fif»t  Xpiarov,  Spa  tot 

A^paafi  (rntpfxa  tart  :    Rom.  xi.  I  «y»  ,  .  .  €K  antpfiuiTos   A^padp,.    The 

nominative  to  the  whole  sentence  is  -navra  ol  t$  'ifrpafjX.  '  The 
descendants  of  Israel  have  not  all  of  them  the  legal  rights  of  in- 
heritance from  Abraham  because  they  are  his  offspring  by  natural 
descent.' 

dXX*.  Instead  of  the  sentence  being  continued  in  the  same  form 
as  it  began  in  the  first  clause,  a  quotation  is  introduced  which  com- 
pletes it  in  sense  but  not  in  grammar:  cf.  Gal.  iii.  11,  is;  i  Cor. 
XV.  27. 

iv  *laa&K  KXT|6i^acTai  croi  oitipfia:  'in  (i.e.  through)  Isaac  will 
those  who  are  to  be  your  true  descendants  and  representatives 
be  reckoned,'  iy  (as  in  Col.  i.  16  tp  avra  eicri<r6rj  ra  ndvra)  im- 
plies that  Isaac  is  the  starting-point,  place  of  origin  of  the 
descendants,  and  therefore  the  agent  through  whom  the  descent 
takes  place ;  so  Matt.  ix.  34  <V  tw  Spxovrt  t&v  daifioviw :  i  Cor.  vi.  a. 

<nr*pfia  (cf.  Gen.  xii.  7  ''^  amfpfxari  trov  Saxrat  t^v  yrjv  I  Gen.  XV.  5  ovras 

e(TTai  ri  (nrfpixa  trov)  is  Used  collectively  to  express  the  whole  number 
of  descendants,  not  merely  the  single  son  Isaac.  The  passage 
means  that  the  sons  of  Israel  did  not  inherit  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham  because  they  were  his  offspring — there  were  some  who 
were  his  offspring  who  had  not  inherited  them ;  but  they  did  so  be- 
cause they  were  descendants  of  that  one  among  his  sons  through 
whom  it  had  been  specially  said  that  his  true  descendants  should 
be  counted. 

The  quotation  is  taken  from  the  LXX  of  Gen.  xxi.  la,  which 
it  reproduces  exactly.  It  also  correctly  reproduces  both  the  lan- 
guage and  meaning  of  the  original  Hebrew.  The  same  passage 
is  quoted  in  Heb.  xi.  18. 

The  opinion  expressed  in  this  verse  is  of  course  exactly  opposite 
to  the  current  opinion — that  their  descent  bound  Israel  to  God 
by  an  indissoluble  bond.  See  the  discussion  at  the  end  of  this 
section. 

KXT]0i^(rcT(u :  'reckoned,'  'considered,'  'counted  as  the  true 
trntpita' ;  not  as  in  ver.  11,  and  as  it  is  sometimes  taken  here, 
'  called/  *  sunmioned '  (see  below). 

The  OMt  of  the  word  itaXim  are  derived  from  two  main  significatioDS, 
{I)  to  'call,'  'sommon,'  (a)  to  'gmnrnon  by  name,'  hence  'to  name.'  It 
may  mean  (i)  to  'call  alond'  Heb.  iii.  13,  to  'summon,'  to  'summon  to 
a  iMmquet'  (in  these  senses  also  in  the  LXX),  so  i  Cor.  x.  37  ;  Malt.  xxii.  3; 
from  these  is  derived  the  technical  sense  of  'calling  to  the  kingdom.' 
This  exact  usage  is  hardly  found  in  the  LXX,  but  Is.  xlii.  6  {t'^ih  Kvpios 
i  Bids  fK&Kfcrd  at  iv  SiKcuoavvji) ,  Is.  li.  2  (on  fU  ^v  ital  tKAXtaa  avT6v, 
Koi  tv\6yqaa  avrbv  kcH  ■fifairqaa  avrbv  koX  (7r\r;0vva  airSv)  approach  it.  In 
this  sense  it  is  confined  to  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul  with  Hebrews  and  St.  Peter, 
the  word  hardlj  occurring  at  all  in  St.  John  and  not  in  this  sense  elscwhen 


24*  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IX  7-0 

(mlthongh  KXifrSt  is  so  used  Matt.  xxM.  14).  The  fnll  constraction  it  *oX«ft 
Ttra  tU  Ti,  1  Thcss.  ii.  ii  rov  KaXovvros  iifiat  *ls  TTjy  iairrov  PaaiKtlav  ml 
i6(ay :  but  the  word  was  early  used  absolutelj-,  and  so  o  KaXvJv  of  God  (t« 
Rom.  iv.  17;  viii.  30 ;  ix.  11,  34).  The  technical  use  of  the  term  comes  out 
most  strongly  in  1  Cor.  vii  and  in  the  derived  words  (see  on  ic\riT6t 
Rom.  i.  I,  71.  (a)  In  the  second  group  of  meanings  the  ordinary  con- 
struction is  with  a  double  accusatire,  Acts  xiv.  la  iK&Kow  t«  r6v  ^apv&^ar 
Aia  (so  Rom.  ix.  25,  and  constantly  in  LXX),  or  with  i>v6iJMri,  im\  ry 
6v6ijuari  as  Luke  i.  59,  61,  although  the  Hebraism  KaXiaovai  rh  Svofia  airrov 
'EiifiavovqX.  (Matt.  i.  33)  occurs.  But  to  'call  by  name'  has  associations 
derived  on  the  one  side  from  the  idea  of  calling  over,  reckoning,  accounting ; 
hence  such  phrases  as  Rom.  ix.  7  (from  Gen.  xxi.  la  LXX),  and  on  the  other 
from  the  idea  of  aflection  suggested  by  the  idea  of  calling  by  name,  so 
Rom.  ix.  a6  (from  LXX  Hos.  iL  i  [i.  10]).  These  derivative  n^es  of  the  word 
occur  independently  both  in  Greek,  where  iteKKrjfuu  may  be  used  to  mean 
little  more  than  'to  be/ and  in  Hebrew.  The  two  main  meanings  can  always 
be  distinguished,  but  probably  in  the  use  of  the  word  each  has  influenced 
the  other;  when  God  is  said  to  be  '  He  that  calls  us'  the  primary  idea  is 
clearly  that  of  invitation,  but  the  secondary  idea  of  'calling  by  name,*  L«. 
of  expressing  affection,  gives  a  warmer  colouring  to  the  idea  suggested. 

8.  TOUT*  i<mp.    From  this  instance  we  maj  deduce  a  general 

princi[)le. 

Toi  T^Ki'o  Tfi«  crapK^s :  liBeri  quos  corporis  vis  genuerit.     FrL 
r£'K»'a  Tou  0eou :  bound  to  God  by  all  those  ties  which  have  been 

the  privilege  and  characteristic  of  the  chosen  race. 

Ta  T^Kfa  Tfjs  ^TrayyeXias:  liberi  quos  Dei promissum  procreavit.  FrL 

Cf.  Gal.  iv.  23  dXX'  6  ^fv  tK  TTjs  n<u8i(TKT}s  Kara  aapKa  ytytwrfrai,  i  6*  «a 
rT^r  (X(v0(pas  81  irrayytXiat :  28  fjfjifU  dc,  dd(\(fioi,  Kara  'laaax  cVoyycXtof 
TfKva  eV/ifV. 

All  these  expressions  {rtirva  rm>  ©fov,  rewa  TTJs  iirayy(\iat)  are 
used  elsewhere  of  Christians,  but  that  is  not  their  meaning  in  this 
passage.  St  Paul  is  concerned  in  this  place  to  prove  not  that 
any  besides  those  of  Jewish  descent  might  inherit  the  promises,  but 
merely  that  not  all  of  Jewish  descent  necessarily  and  for  that  very 
reason  must  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of  that  descent.  Physical  con- 
nexion with  the  Jewish  stock  was  not  in  itself  a  ground  for  inherit- 
ing the  promise.  That  was  the  privilege  of  those  intended  when 
the  promise  was  first  spoken,  and  who  might  be  considered  to  be  bom 
of  the  promise.  This  principle  is  capable  of  a  far  more  universal 
application,  an  application  which  is  made  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  (iii.  29;  iv.  j8,  &c.),  but  is  not  made  here. 

0.  iirayyeXia^  must  be  the  predicate  of  the  sentence  thrown 
forward  in  order  to  give  emphasis  and  to  show  where  the  point 
of  the  argument  lies.  '  This  word  is  one  of  promise,'  i.  e.  if 
you  refer  to  the  passage  of  Scripture  you  will  see  that  Isaac  was 
tlie  child  of  promise,  and  not  born  Kara  adpKa ;  his  birth  therefore 
depends  upon  the  promise  which  was  in  fact  the  eflBcient  cause  of 
h,  and  not  the  promise  upon  his  birth.  And  hence  is  deduced 
a  general  law :  a  mere  connexion  with  the  Jewish  race  «n^  vapm 


tSL  9-lL]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  X45 

does  not  necessarily  imply  a  share  in  the  arayytXta,  for  it  did  not 

according  to  the  original  conditions. 

Kara  toc  Kaip^K  toutok  ^Xeucrofiai,  Kol  Jorai  tf  Zdppa  ul6%,  St.  Paul 
combines  Gen.  ZViii.  lO  (LXX)  fnavaarpfCpaiv  rj^o)  rrp6s  <Tf  Kara  rot 
Kotpov  rovrov  tls  &paSf  (cat  c^et  viov  2dppa  4  yvi^  (rov ',  and  1 4  (LXX) 
tls  rov  Kaipitv  rovrov  avaarpi^cD  irpos  <ri  tls  &pas,  koi  tarai  rrj  Zapptf  vl6s. 
The  Greek  text  is  a  somewhat  free  translation  of  the  Hebrew,  but 
St.  Paul's  deductions  from  the  passage  are  quite  in  harmony  with 
both  its  words  and  its  spirit. 

•toxA  TOK  Kaip^K  TouToi'  is  shown  clearly  by  the  passage  in  Genesis 
to  mean  *  at  this  time  in  the  following  year,'  i.  e.  when  a  year  is 
accomplished ;  but  the  words  have  little  significance  for  St.  Paul : 
they  are  merely  a  reminiscence  of  the  passage  he  is  quoting, 
and  in  the  shortened  form  in  which  he  gives  them,  the  meaning, 
without  reference  to  the  original  passage,  is  hardly  clear. 

10.  ofi  il6vo¥  hi :  see  on  v.  3,  introducing  an  additional  or  even 
stronger  proof  or  example.  '  You  may  find  some  flaw  in  the 
previous  argument;  after  all  Ishmael  was  not  a  fiilly  legitimate 
child  like  Isaac,  and  it  was  for  this  reason  (you  may  say)  that  the 
sons  of  Ishmael  were  not  received  within  the  covenant ;  the  in- 
stance that  I  am  now  going  to  quote  has  no  defect  of  this  sort, 
and  it  will  prove  the  principle  that  has  been  laid  down  still  more 
dearly.' 

dXXA  nat  'PcP^KRo,  K.T.X. :  the  sentence  beginning  with  these  words 
is  never  finished  grammatically;  it  is  interrupted  by  the  parenthesis 
in  ver.  11  pfiira  yhp  ytwrjdtvrotv  . .  .  Kokovvros,  and  then  continued 
with  the  construction  changed ;  cf.  v.  la,  18 ;  i  Tim.  i.  3. 

ii  iv69  are  added  to  emphasize  the  exactly  similar  birth  of  the 
two  sons.  The  mother's  name  proves  that  they  have  one  mother, 
these  words  show  that  the  father  too  was  the  same.  There  are 
none  of  the  defective  conditions  which  might  be  found  in  the  case  of 
Isaac  and  Ishmael.     Cf.  Chrys.  ad  loc.  {Horn,  in  Rom.  xvi.  p.  610) 

i\  yap  'Ptd(<Ka  nai  it6vrj  t^  'laaaK  yiyove  yvyrj,  koi  dvo  xtKovaa  iraihas,  (k 
rov  laaax  ertKtp  dp(f)orfpovf'  oXX'  ofutt  ol  rtx6«vret  roO  aiirov  irarp6s 
ivrtt,  r^r  airrjs  ftrprpos,  rat  avrat  Xvaavrts  wdlfac,  ko<  Sttondrpiot  ivns  Koi 
OfioprjTpiot,  ma\  irpos  rovrott  nai  dibvftni,  oi  riv  aiiruv  dnrjKavaap, 

KoiTT|y  Ixouaa :  '  having  conceived ' ;  cf.  Fri.  ad  loc. 

ToG  iroxpos  i\\L5ty :  '  the  ancestor  of  the  Jewish  race.'  St.  Paul  is 
here  identifying  himself  with  the  Jews,  '  his  kinsmen  according  to 
the  flesh.'  The  passage  has  no  reference  to  the  composiiion  of  the 
Roman  community. 

11.  fi^-irw  ydp,  K.T.X.  In  this  verse  a  new  thought  is  introduced, 
connected  with  but  not  absolutely  necessary  for  the  subject  under 
discussion.  The  argument  would  be  quite  complete  without  it 
St  Paul  has  only  to  prove  that  to  be  of  Jewish  descent  did  not  in 
itself  imply  a  right  to  inherit  the  promise.    That  Esau  was  re^ 

ft  • 


344  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMAN8  [XX.  U 

jected  and  Jacob  chosen  is  quite  sufficient  to  establish  this.     But 

the  instance  suggests  another  point  which  was  in  the  Apostle's 
mind,  and  the  change  in  construction  shows  that  a  new  difficulty, 
or  rather  another  side  of  the  question — the  relation  of  these  events 
Id  the  Divine  purpose — has  come  forward.  It  is  because  he  desires 
to  bring  in  this  point  that  he  breaks  off  the  previous  sentence.  The 
yap  then,  as  so  often,  refers  to  something  latent  in  the  Apostle's 
mind,  which  leads  him  to  introduce  his  new  point,  and  is  explained 
by  the  sentence  Iva  ...  fitvn,  '  and  this  incident  shows  also  the 
absolute  freedom  of  the  Divine  election  and  purpose,  for  it  was 
before  the  children  were  bom  that  the  choice  was  made  and  de- 
clared.' 

(iilTrw  .  . .  (jiT|8^ :  '  although  they  were  not  yet  born  nor  had  done 
anything  good  or  evil.'  The  subjective  negative  shows  that  the 
note  of  time  is  introduced  not  merely  as  an  historical  fact  but  as 
one  of  the  conditions  which  must  be  presumed  in  estimating  the 
significance  of  the  event.  The  story  is  so  well  known  that  the 
Apostle  is  able  to  put  first  without  explanation  the  facts  which 
show  the  point  as  he  conceives  it 

Zko  . .  .  \tiyji.  What  is  really  the  underlying  principle  of  the 
action  is  expressed  as  if  it  were  its  logical  purpose;  for  St.  Paul 
represents  the  events  as  taking  place  in  the  way  they  did  in  order 
to  illustrate  the  perfect  freedom  of  the  Divine  purpose. 

^  HOT  ^uXoy^t'  irp^Oeais  toC  ©€ou :  'the  Divine  purpose  which 
has  worked  on  the  principle  of  selection.'  These  words  are  the 
key  to  chaps,  ix-xi  and  suggest  the  solution  of  the  problem  before 
St.  Paul.  np66((Tn  is  a  technical  Pauline  term  occurring  although 
not  frequently  in  the  three  later  groups  of  Epistles :  Rom.  viii.  s8 ; 
ix.  1 1  ;  £ph.  i.  lO,  1 1  iv  avr^,  iv  if  Kol  €ickr)pa>6T]fi€p,  npoopurOtvrtt  mrJk 
irp66«nv  Tov  rk  rravra  ivfpyovvrot  kotA  T^r  ^ovkifv  rov  6t\r}ftaros  avrev: 
iii.  1 1  Kara  np60f(Tip  rStv  alayatv  tjy  inoirjwn  iv  r^  X.  'I.  r^  Kvpt«>  iiliAp '. 
2  Tim.  i.  9  roC  aaxravTos  tjfMs  xai  KaXtaavros  KXfjtrti  iyia,  ov  Kara  ra 
ipya  fificov,  dk\a  Kor  Idiav  rrpoBfatv  Ka\  X'^P*"  •  the  verb  also  is  found 
once  in  the  same  sense,  Eph.  i.  9  xark  i^r  ridoKiap  airrov,  ^r  wpr 
i6(To  fv  avT^.  From  Aristotle  onwards  np6d(a-is  had  been  used  to 
express  purpose ;  with  St.  Paul  it  is  the  '  Divine  purpose  of  God  for 
the  salvation  of  mankind,'  the  '  purpose  of  the  ages '  determined  in 
the  Divine  mind  before  the  creation  of  the  world.  The  idea  is 
apparently  expressed  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  by  /SowXij  (Luke  vii.  30; 
Acts  ii.  23 ;  iv.  28;  xx.  27)  which  occurs  once  in  St,  Paul  (Eph.  i. 
11),  but  no  previous  instance  of  the  word  np66(tns  in  this  sense 
seems  to  be  quoted.  The  conception  is  worked  out  by  the  Apostle 
with  greater  force  and  originality  than  by  any  previous  writer,  and 
hence  he  needs  a  new  word  to  express  it.  See  further  the  longer 
note  on  St.  Paul's  Philosophy  of  History,  p.  342.  cVXoyiJ  ex- 
presses an  essentially  O.  T.  idea  (see  below)  but  was  itself  a  neti 


IX.  U^  12.]         THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  345 

word,  the  only  instances  quoted  in  Jewish  literature  earlier  than 
this  Epistle  being  from  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  which  often  show 
an  approach  to  Christian  theological  language.  It  means  (i) 
'  the  process  of  choice,'  '  election.'     Ps.  Sol.  xviii.  6  Kadaplaai  6  Qf6s 

'lapafjX  tls  ^nipav  t'Xtov  iv  tiiXoyiq,  ds  ^fxtpav  eKkoytjs   iv  ava^ei  Xpiarov 

airroi;  ix.  7;  Jos.  £./.  II.  viii.  14;  Acts  ix.  15;  Rom.  xi.  5,  28; 
I  Thess.  i.  4 ;  a  Pet.  i.  10.  In  this  sense  it  may  be  used  of  man's 
election  of  his  own  lot  (as  in  Josephus  and  perhaps  in  Ps.  Sol. 
ix.  7),  but  in  the  N.  T.  it  is  always  used  of  God's  election.  (2)  As 
abstract  for  concrete  it  means  «Xe»trot,  those  who  are  chosen, 
Rom.  XL  7.  (3)  In  Aquila  Is.  xxii.  7  ;  Symmachus  and  Theodo- 
tion,  Is.  xxxvii.  34,  it  means  '  the  choicest,'  being  apparently  em- 
ployed to  represent  the  Hebrew  idiom. 

fkirQ :  the  opposite  to  fKiriirT»Ktv  (ver.  6) :  the  subjunctive  shows 
that  the  principles  which  acted  then  are  still  in  force. 

oAk  ii  SpyuK  dXX*  eK  tou  Ka\ourro$.  These  words  qualify  the 
whole  sentence  and  are  added  to  make  more  clear  the  absolute 
character  of  God's  free  choice. 

We  must  notice  (i)  that  St.  Paul  never  here  says  anything  about 
the  principle  on  which  the  call  is  made ;  all  he  says  is  that  it  is  not 
the  result  of  Jpya.  We  have  no  right  either  with  Chrysostom 
(«'a  <i>avji  <pitia\  tov  Qtov  ij  e'lcXoy^  17  Kara  irpodtaiv  xai  trpiyvoKTiv  yevopkivqS 
to  read  into  the  passage  foreknowledge  or  to  deduce  from  the 
passage  an  argument  against  Divine  foreknowledge.  The  words 
are  simply  directed  against  the  assumption  of  human  merit.  And 
(a)  nothing  is  said  in  this  passage  about  anything  except '  election ' 
or  'calling'  to  the  kingdom.  The  gloss  of  Calvin  dum  alios  ad 
sahtUm  praedesHnat^  alios  ad  aeternam  damnationem  is  nowhere 
implied  in  the  text. 

So  Gore  {Studia  Biblica,  iii.  p.  44)  *The  absolute  election  of 
Jacob, — the  "  loving  "  of  Jacob  and  the  "  hating  "  of  Esau, — has 
reference  simply  to  the  election  of  one  to  higher  privileges  as  head 
of  the  chosen  race,  than  the  other.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  their 
eternal  salvation.  In  the  original  to  which  St.  Paul  is  referring, 
Esau  is  simply  a  synonym  for  Edom.' 

^aOXov  it  the  reading  of  the  RV.  and  modem  editors  vnth  K  A  B,  a  few 
minascules,  and  Orig.  Kait(>v  which  occurs  in  TR.  with  D  F  G  K  L  etc.  and 
Fathers  after  Chrysostom  was  early  substituted  for  the  less  usual  word. 
A  similar  change  has  been  made  in  a  Cor.  v.  10. 

For  the  iTp6e€<n,s  toO  0€ov  of  the  RV.  the  TR.  reads  tow  ©eoD  np69«ns  with 
the  support  of  only  a  few  minuscules. 

12.  6  (iciluK  K.T.X.     The  quotation  is  made  accurately  from  the 

LXX  of  Gen.  XXV.  a 3  tai  eure  Kvpios  airrg  Avo  fdmj  iv  tq  ytarpi  aoi 
ttaiP,  Koi  dvo  \ao\  in  t^i  KoiKlas  <rov  biatTTa\r](TovTai'  Koi  \ahi  \aov  vnfpe^fi, 

cai  6  fuiCav  iovXiwn  r^  ikdaaovi  (cf.  Hatch,  Essoys  in  Biblical  Greek, 
p.  163).    God's  election  or  rejection  of  the  founder  of  the  race  if 


a4<(  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  12,  It 

part  of  the  process  by  which  He  elects  or  rejects  the  race.  In 
either  case  the  choice  has  been  made  independently  of  merits  either 
of  work  or  of  ancestry.  Both  were  of  exactly  the  same  descent,  and 
the  choice  was  made  before  either  was  born. 

A  fkiiluv  .  .  .  T^  i\da<Toy^ :  *  the  elder,'  *  the  younger/  This 
use  of  the  words  seems  to  be  a  Hebraism;  see  Gen.  x.  ai  «u  r^ 

2f)fi  iyivr]drf  .  .  .  dde\<f>u>  'lacfxd  tov  ftfi(ovos :   ib.  Xxix.  1 6  oyofia  rg  fiei^om 

Atia,  Kai  ovofta  rfj  vtoaripa  'VaxrjK,  But  the  dictionaries  quote  in 
support  of  the  use  ZKini<^v  i  (liyai  Pol.  XVIII.  xviii.  9.  The 
instances  quoted  of  ^iKp6s  (Mk.  xv,  40;  Mt  xviii.  6,  10,  14,  Ac.) 
are  all  equally  capable  of  being  explained  of  stature. 

13.  TOf  'laKup  ^yoTTpo-o,  tov  Sc  'Haou  ^)j,i(rr)aa.  SL  Paul  con- 
cludes his  argument  by  a  second  quotation  taken  freely  from  the 
LXX  of  Mai.  i.  2,  3  ovk  iibt\(j>bt  Tjv  'Herat!  t9v  'I(uo)/9  \  Xryft  Kvpuif*  maX 
rjyaTrrjva  tov  'laKO)^,  tAv  di  'Htrav  €fiicrT}(ra. 

What  is  the  exact  object  with  which  these  words  are  introduced? 
(i)  The  greater  number  of  commentators  (so  Fri.  Weiss  Lipsius), 
consider  that  they  simply  give  the  explanation  of  God's  conduct. 
'  God  chose  the  younger  brother  and  rejected  the  elder  not  from 
any  merit  on  the  part  of  the  one  or  the  other,  but  simply  because 
He  loved  the  one  and  hated  the  other.'  The  aorists  then  refer  to 
the  time  before  the  birth  of  the  two  sons ;  there  is  no  reference  to 
the  peoples  descended  from  either  of  them,  and  St.  Paul  is  repre- 
sented as  vindicating  the  independence  of  the  Divine  choice  in 
relation  to  the  two  sons  of  Isaac. 

(2)  This  explanation  has  the  merit  of  simplicity,  but  it  is  proN 
ably  too  simple,  (i)  In  the  first  place,  it  is  quite  clear  that  St. 
Paul  throughout  has  in  his  mind  in  each  case  the  descendants  as 
well  as  the  ancestors,  the  people  who  are  chosen  and  rejected  as 
well  as  the  fathers  through  whom  the  choice  is  made  (cf.  ver.  7). 
In  fact  this  is  necessary  for  his  argument.  He  has  to  justify  God's 
dealing,  not  with  individuals,  but  with  the  great  mass  of  Jews  who 
have  been  rejected,  (ii)  Again,  if  we  turn  to  the  original  contexts 
of  the  two  quotations  in  w.  12,  13  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in 
both  cases  there  is  reference  not  merely  to  the  children  but  to  their 
descendants.  Gen.  xxv.  23  *  Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb,  and  two 
peoples  shall  be  separated  even  from  thy  bowels;'  Mai.  i.  3  'But 
Esau  I  hated,  and  made  his  mountains  a  desolation,  and  gave  his 
heritage  to  the  jackals  of  the  wilderness.  Whereas  £dom  saith,' 
&c.  There  is  nothing  in  St.  Paul's  method  of  quotation  which  could 
prevent  him  from  using  the  words  in  a  sense  somewhat  different 
from  the  original;  but  when  the  original  passage  in  both  cases  is 
really  more  in  accordance  with  his  method  and  argument,  it  is 
more  reasonable  to  believe  that  he  is  not  narrowing  the  sense 
(iii)  As  will  become  more  apparent  later,  St.  Paul's  argument  is  to 
show  that  throughout  God's  action  there  it  running  a  'purpoae 


IX.  13.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  247 

according  to  election.'  He  does  not  therefore  wish  to  say  that  h 
is  merely  God's  love  or  hate  that  has  guided  Him. 

Hence  it  is  better  to  refer  the  words,  either  directly  or  in- 
directly, to  the  choice  of  the  nation  as  well  as  the  choice  of  the 
founder  (so  Go.  Gif.  Liddon).  But  a  further  question  still  remains 
as  to  the  use  of  the  aorist.  We  may  with  most  commentators 
still  refer  it  to  the  original  time  when  the  choice  was  made: 
when  the  founders  of  the  nations  were  in  the  womb,  God  chose 
one  nation  and  rejected  another  because  of  his  love  and  hatred. 
But  it  is  really  better  to  take  the  whole  passage  as  corroborating  the 
previous  verse  by  an  appeal  to  history.  '  God  said  the  elder  shall 
serve  the  younger,  and,  as  the  Prophet  has  shown,  the  whole  of  sub- 
sequent history  has  been  an  illustration  of  this.  Jacob  God  has 
selected  for  His  love ;  Esau  He  has  hated :  He  has  given  his  moun- 
tains for  a  desolation  and  his  heritage  to  the  jackals.' 

i^yiTn\<Ta  . . .  i}i.i<n\(Ta.  There  is  no  need  to  soften  these  words 
as  some  have  attempted,  translating  '  loved  more '  and  '  loved  less.' 
They  simply  express  what  had  been  as  a  matter  of  fact  and  was 
always  looked  upon  by  the  Jews  as  God's  attitude  towards  the  two 
nations.  So  Thanchuma,  p.  32.  a  (quoted  byWetstein,  ii.  438)  Tu 
invtniex  omnes  transgressioTies,  quas  odit  Deus  S.  B.  futsse  in  Esavo. 

How  rery  telling  wonld  be  the  reference  to  Esau  and  Edom  an  acquaint- 
ance with  Jewish  contemporary  literature  will  show.  Although  in  Dent,  xxiii.  7 
it  was  said  'Thou  shalt  not  abhor  an  Edomite,  for  he  is  thy  brother,'  later 
events  had  obliterated  this  feeling  of  kinship  ;  or  perhaps  rather  the  feeling  of 
relationship  had  exasperated  the  bitterness  which  the  hostility  of  the  two 
nations  had  aroused.  At  any  rate  the  history  is  one  of  continuous  hatred  on 
both  sides.  So  in  Ps.  cxxxvii.  7  and  in  the  Greek  Esdras  the  burning  of  the 
temple  is  ascribed  to  the  Edomites  (see  also  Obadiah  and  Jer.  xlix.  7-33). 
Two  extracts  from  Apocryphal  works  will  exhibit  this  hatred  most  clearly. 
In  Enoth  Ixxxix.  ii-ia  (p.  233,  ed.  Charles)  the  patriarchal  history  ii 
symbolized  by  different  animals :  '  But  that  white  bull  (Abraham)  which  was 
bom  amongst  them  begat  a  wild  ass  (Ishmael)  and  a  white  bull  with  it 
(Isaac),  and  the  wild  ass  multiplied.  But  that  bull  which  was  bom  from 
him  begat  a  black  wild  boar  (Esau)  and  a  white  sheep  (Jacob);  and  that 
wild  boar  begat  many  boars,  but  that  sheep  begat  twelve  sheep.'  Here 
Esau  is  represented  by  the  most  detested  of  animals,  the  pig.  So  in 
Jubilees  xxxvii.  33  sq.  (trans.  Charles)  the  following  speech  is  characteristi- 
cally put  into  the  mouth  of  Esau :  '  And  thou  too  (Jacob)  dost  hate  me  and 
my  children  for  ever,  and  there  is  no  observing  the  tie  of  brotherhood  with 
thee.  Hear  these  words  which  I  declare  unto  thee :  if  the  boar  can  change 
its  skin  and  make  its  bristles  as  soft  as  wool :  or  if  it  can  cause  horns  to 
sprout  forth  on  its  head  like  the  homs  of  a  stag  or  of  a  sheep,  then  I  will 
observe  the  tie  of  brotherhood  with  thee,  for  since  the  twin  male  offspring 
were  separated  from  their  mother,  thou  hast  not  shown  thyself  a  brother  to 
me.  And  if  the  wolves  make  peace  with  the  lambs  so  as  not  to  devour  or 
rob  them,  and  if  their  hearts  turn  towards  them  to  do  good,  then  there  will 
be  peace  in  my  heart  towards  thee.  And  if  the  lion  becomes  the  friend  of 
the  ox,  and  if  he  is  bound  under  one  yoke  with  him  and  ploughs  with  him 
and  makes  peace  with  him,  then  I  will  make  peace  with  thee.  And  when 
the  raven  becomes  white  as  the  raza  (a  large  white  bird),  then  I  know  tiiat 


24l>  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  0-lS. 

I  shall  loTe  thee  and  make  peace  with  thee.  Thon  shalt  be  rooted  out  antt 
thy  ton  shall  be  rooted  out  and  there  shall  be  no  peace  for  thee.'  (See  also 
Jot.  Bill.  Jud.  IV.  IT.  I,  a ;  Haiurath,  Ntw  Tutamtmt  TitudS,  toL  L  pp.  67, 68, 
Et^.  Tnmt.) 


Tkt  Divint  BlecHom, 

St.  Fanl  has  set  himself  to  prove  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
promise  made  to  Abraham,  by  which  God  had  '  pledged  Himself  to 
Israel '  (Gore,  Siudia  Biblica,  iii.  40),  and  bound  Himself  to  allow  all 
those  who  were  Abraham's  descendants  to  inherit  these  promises.  He 
proves  this  by  showing  that  in  two  cases,  as  was  recognized  by  the 
Jews  themselves,  actual  descendants  from  Abraham  had  been  ex- 
cluded. Hence  he  deduces  the  general  principle, '  There  was  from 
the  first  an  element  of  inscrutable  selectiveness  in  God's  dealings 
within  the  race  of  Abraham '  (Gore,  ii5.).  The  inheritance  of  the 
promise  is  for  those  whom  God  chooses,  and  is  not  a  necessary 
privilege  of  natural  descent.  The  second  point  which  he  raises, 
that  this  choice  is  independent  of  human  merit,  he  works  out 
further  in  the  following  verses. 

On  the  main  argument  it  is  sufficient  at  present  to  notice  that  it 
was  primarily  an  argumenium  ad  hominem  and  as  such  was  abso- 
lutely conclusive  against  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed.  The 
Jews  prided  themselves  on  being  a  cho.sen  race ;  they  prided  them- 
selves especially  on  having  been  chosen  while  the  Ishmaelites  and 
the  Edomites  (whom  they  hated)  had  been  rejected.  St.  Paul 
analyzes  the  principle  on  which  the  one  race  was  chosen  and  the 
other  rejected,  and  shows  that  the  very  same  principles  would 
fjerfectly  justify  God's  action  in  further  dealing  with  it  God  might 
choose  some  of  them  and  reject  others,  just  as  he  had  originally 
chosen  them  and  not  the  other  descendants  of  Abraham. 

That  this  idea  of  the  Divine  Election  was  one  of  the  most  funda- 
mental in  the  O.  T.  needs  no  illustration.  We  find  it  in  the 
Pentateuch,  as  Deut.  vii.  6  '  For  thou  art  an  holy  people  unto  the 
Lord,  thy  God:  the  Lord,  thy  God,  hath  chosen  thee  to  be  a 
peculiar  people  unto  himself  above  all  peoples  that  are  on  the  face 
of  the  earth  : '  in  the  Psalms,  as  Ps.  cxxxv.  4  '  For  the  Lord  hath 
chosen  Jacob  unto  himself,  and  Israel  for  his  peculiar  treasure':  in 
the  Prophets,  as  Is.  xli.  8,  9  '  But  thou  Israel,  my  servant,  Jacob 
whom  I  have  chosen,  the  seed  of  Abraham  my  friend ;  thou  whom 
I  have  taken  hold  of  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  and  called  thee 
from  the  corners  thereof,  and  said  unto  thee.  Thou  art  my  servant, 
I  have  chosen  thee  and  not  cast  thee  away.'  And  this  idea  of 
Israel  being  the  elect  people  of  God  is  one  of  those  which  were 
seized  and  grasped  most  tenaciously  by  contemporary  Jewish 
thought.    But  between  the  conception  as  held  by  St  Paul's  000- 


IX.  a-18.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  149 

temporaries  and  the  O.  T.  there  were  striking  differences  In  the 
O.  T.  it  is  always  looked  upon  as  an  act  of  condescension  and  love 
of  God  for  Israel,  it  is  for  this  reason  that  He  redeemed  them  from 
bondage,  and  purified  them  from  sin  (Deut.  vii.  8 ;  x.  15;  Is.  xliv. 
21,  22);  although  the  Covenant  is  specified  it  is  one  which  involves 
obligations  on  Israel  (Deut.  vii.  9,  &c.) :  and  the  thought  again  and 
again  recurs  that  Israel  has  thus  been  chosen  not  merely  for  their 
own  sake  but  as  an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God,  and  not  merely 
to  exhibit  the  Divine  power,  but  also  for  the  benefit  of  other  nations 
(Gen.  xii.  3 ;  Is.  Ixvi.  18,  &c.).  But  among  the  Rabbis  the  idea  of 
Election  has  lost  all  its  higher  side.  It  is  looked  on  as  a  covenant 
by  which  God  is  bound  and  over  which  He  seems  to  have  no  control. 
Israel  and  God  are  bound  in  an  indissoluble  marriage  {Shemoih 
rabba  1.  51):  the  holiness  of  Israel  can  never  be  done  away  with, 
even  although  Israel  sin,  it  still  remains  Israel  {Sanhedrin  55) :  the 
worst  IsraeUte  is  not  profane  like  the  heathen  (Bammidbar  rabba  1 7): 
no  Israelite  can  go  into  Gehenna  {Pesikta  38  a)  :  all  Israelites  have 
their  portion  in  the  world  to  come  {^Sanhedrin  i),  and  much  more 
to  the  same  effect.  (See  Weber  Alisyn.  Theol.  p.  51,  &c.,  to  whom 
are  due  most  of  the  above  references.) 

And  this  belief  was  shared  by  St,  Paul's  contemporaries.  '  The 
planting  of  them  is  rooted  for  ever :  they  shall  not  be  plucked  out 
all  the  days  of  the  heaven :  for  the  portion  of  the  Lord  and  the 
inheritance  of  God  is  Israel '  {Ps.  Sol.  xiv.  3) ;  '  Blessed  art  thou  of 
the  Lord,  O  Israel,  for  evermore'  {}b.  viii.  41) ;  '  Thou  didst  choose 
the  seed  of  Abraham  before  all  the  nations,  and  didst  set  thy  name 
before  us,  O  Lord :  and  thou  wilt  abide  among  us  for  ever '  {ib.  ix. 
17,  i8).  While  Israel  is  always  to  enjoy  the  Divine  mercy,  sinners, 
i.  e.  Gentiles,  are  to  be  destroyed  before  the  face  of  the  Lord 
[lb.  xii.  7,  8).  So  again  in  4  Ezra,  they  have  been  selected  while 
Esau  has  been  rejected  (iii.  16).  And  this  has  not  been  done  as  part 
of  any  larger  Divine  purpose ;  Israel  is  the  end  of  the  Divine  action ; 
for  Israel  the  world  was  created  (vi.  55) ;  it  does  not  in  any  way 
exist  for  the  benefit  of  other  nations,  who  are  of  no  account ;  they 
are  as  spittle,  as  the  dropping  from  a  vessel  (vi  55,  56).  More 
instances  might  be  quoted  {Jubilees  xix.  16  ;  xxii.  9 ;  Apoc.  Barttch 
xlviil  20,  23 ;  Ixxvii.  3),  but  the  above  are  enough  to  illustrate  the 
position  St,  Paul  is  combating.  The  Jew  believed  that  his  race 
was  joined  to  God  by  a  covenant  which  nothing  could  dissolve, 
and  that  he  and  his  people  alone  were  the  centre  of  all  God's 
action  in  the  creation  and  government  of  the  world. 

This  idea  St.  Paul  combats.  But  it  is  important  to  notice  how 
the  whole  of  the  O.  T.  conception  is  retained  by  him,  but 
broadened  and  illuminated.  Educated  as  a  Pharisee,  he  had 
held  the  doctrine  of  election  with  the  utmost  tenacity.  He  had 
believed  that  his  own  nation  had  been  chosen  bom  among  all  the 


»50  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [IX.  14-29 

kingdoms  of  the  earth.  He  still  holds  the  doctrine,  but  the 
Christian  revelation  has  given  a  meaning  to  what  had  been  a  nar- 
row privilege,  and  might  seem  an  arbitrary  choice.  His  view  is 
now  widened.  The  world,  not  Israel,  is  the  final  end  of  God's 
action.  This  is  the  key  to  the  explanation  of  the  great  difficulty 
the  rejection  of  Israel.  Already  in  the  words  that  he  has  used 
above  17  kot  eK\oyf)v  irpodfcris  he  has  shown  the  principle  which  he 
is  working  out.  The  mystery  which  had  been  hidden  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world  has  been  revealed  (Rom.  xvi.  26).  There 
is  still  a  Divine  cVXoyjj,  but  it  is  now  realized  that  this  is  the  result 
of  a  Trp6d(ais,  a  universal  Divine  purpose  which  had  worked  through 
the  ages  on  the  principle  of  election,  which  was  now  beginning  to 
be  revealed  and  understood,  and  which  St.  Paul  will  explain  and 
vindicate  in  the  chapters  that  follow  (of.  Eph.  i.  4,  ii ;  iii,  ii). 

We  shall  follow  St.  Paul  in  his  argument  as  he  gradually  works 
it  out.  Meanwhile  it  is  convenient  to  remember  the  exact  point  he 
has  reached.  He  has  shown  that  God  has  not  been  untrue  to  any 
promise  in  making  a  selection  from  among  the  Israel  of  his  own 
day ;  He  is  only  acting  on  the  principle  He  followed  in  selecting 
the  Israelites  and  rejecting  the  Edomites  and  Ishmaelites.  By  the 
introduction  of  the  phrase  ^  'f"^'  fKXoytjv  npofifmi  St.  Paul  has  also 
suggested  the  lines  on  which  his  argument  will  proceed. 


THE  EEJECTIOIT  OP  ISHAEIi  NOT  nTCONSISTETTT 
WITH  THE  DrVIlTB  JUSTICE. 

IX.  14-29.  But  secondly  it  may  be  urged:  •  Surely  then 
God  is  unjust!  No^  if  you  turn  to  the  Scriptures  you  will 
see  that  He  has  the  right  to  confer  His  favours  on  whom  He 
will  {as  He  did  on  Moses)  or  to  with/wld  them  {as  He  did 
from  Pharaoh)  (w.  14-18). 

If  it  is  further  urged^  Why  blame  me  if  I  like  Pharaoh 
reject  Gods  offer ^  and  thus  fulfil  His  willt  I  reply,  It  is 
your  part  not  to  cavil  but  to  submit.  The  creature  may  not 
complain  against  the  Creator,  any  more  than  the  vessel 
against  the  potter  (w.  19-21).  Still  less  when  God^ s  purpose 
has  been  so  beneficent,  and  that  to  a  body  so  mixed  as  this 
Christian  Church  of  ours^  chosen  not  only  from  the  Jews  but 
also  from  the  Gentiles  (vv.  22-24) ; — as  indeed  was  foretold 
(w.  25-29). 


IX.  14-20.]         THE   UNBELIEF   OF   ISRAEL  a^I 

**But  there  is  a  second  objection  which  may  be  raised.  'If 
what  you  say  is  true  that  God  rejects  one  and  accepts  another 
apart  from  either  privilege  of  birth  or  human  merit,  is  not  His 
conduct  arbitrary  and  unjust?'  What  answer  shall  we  make  to 
this  ?  Surely  there  is  no  injustice  with  God.  Heaven  forbid  that 
I  should  say  so.  I  am  only  laying  down  clearly  the  absolute  character 
of  the  Divine  sovereignty.  **  The  Scripture  has  shown  us  clearly 
the  principles  of  Divine  action  in  two  typical  and  opposed  incidents: 
that  of  Moses  exhibiting  the  Divine  grace,  that  of  Pharaoh  ex- 
hibiting the  Divine  severity.  Take  the  case  of  Moses.  When  he 
demanded  a  sign  of  the  Divine  favour,  the  Lord  said  (Ex.  xxxiiL 
17-19)  '  Thou  hast  found  grace  in  my  sight,  and  I  know  thee  by 
name  ...  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  pass  before  thee  ;  I  will  be 
gracious  to  whom  I  will  be  gracious,  and  will  show  mercy  on 
whom  I  will  show  mercy.'  *•  These  words  imply  that  grace  comes 
to  man  not  because  he  is  determined  to  attain  it,  not  because  he 
exerts  himself  for  it  as  an  athlete  in  the  races,  but  because  he  has 
found  favour  in  God's  sight,  and  God  shows  mercy  towards  him : 
they  prove  in  fact  the  perfect  spontaneousness  of  God's  action. 
"  So  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh.  The  Scripture  (in  Ex.  ix.  16)  tells  us 
that  at  the  time  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt  these  words  were  ad- 
dressed to  him :  '  I  have  given  thee  thy  position  and  place,  that 
I  may  show  forth  in  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  might  be 
declared  in  all  the  earth.'  **  Those  very  Scriptures  then  to  which 
you  Jews  so  often  and  so  confidently  appeal,  show  the  absolute 
character  of  God's  dealings  with  men.  Both  the  bestowal  of  mercy 
or  favour  and  the  hardening  of  the  human  heart  depend  alike  upon 
the  Divine  will. 

"  But  this  leads  to  a  third  objection.  If  man's  destiny  be 
simply  the  result  of  God's  purpose,  if  his  hardness  of  heart  is 
a  state  which  God  Himself  causes,  why  does  God  find  fault  ?  His 
will  is  being  accomplished.  There  is  no  resistance  being  offered. 
Obedience  or  disobedience  is  equally  the  result  of  His  purpose. 
''•Such  questions  should  never  be  asked.  Consider  what  is  in- 
volved in  your  position  as  man.  A  man's  relation  to  God  is  such 
that  whatever  God  does  the  man  has  no  right  to  complain  or  object 
or  reply.  The  Scriptures  have  again  and  again  represented  the 
relation  of  God  to  man  under  the  image  of  a  potter  and  ihe 


S52  KPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [IX  20-28 

vessels  that  he  makes.  Can  you  conceive  (to  use  the  words  of 
the  prophet  Isaiah)  the  vessel  saying  to  its  maker :  '  Why  did  you 
make  me  thus?'  "The  potter  has  complete  control  over  the  lump 
of  clay  with  which  he  works,  he  can  make  of  it  one  vessel  for  an 
honourable  purpose,  another  for  a  dishonourable  purpose.  This 
exactly  expresses  the  relation  of  man  to  his  Maker.  God  has 
made  man,  made  him  from  the  dust  of  the  earth.  He  has  as 
absolute  control  over  His  creature  as  the  potter  has.  No  man 
before  Him  has  any  right,  or  can  complain  of  injustice.  He  is 
absolutely  in  God's  hands.  "This  is  God's  sovereignty;  even 
if  He  had  been  arbitrary  we  could  not  complain.  But  what 
becomes  of  your  talk  of  injustice  when  you  consider  how  He  has 
acted?  Although  a  righteous  God  would  desire  to  exhibit  the 
Divine  power  and  wrath  in  a  world  of  sin ;  even  though  He  were 
dealing  with  those  who  were  fit  objects  of  His  wrath  and  had 
become  fitted  for  destruction ;  yet  He  bore  with  them,  full  of  long- 
suffering  for  them,  **  and  with  the  purpose  of  showing  all  the  wealth 
of  His  glory  on  those  who  are  vessels  deserving  His  mercy,  whom 
as  we  have  already  shown  He  has  prepared  even  fi'om  the 
beginning,  '*  a  mercy  all  the  greater  when  it  is  remembered  that 
we  whom  He  has  called  for  these  privileges  are  chosen  not  only 
from  the  Jews,  but  also  from  the  Gentiles,  Gentiles  who  were 
bound  to  Him  by  no  covenant  Surely  then  there  has  been  no 
injustice  but  only  mercy. 

*•  And  remember  finally  that  this  Divine  plan  of  which  you 
complain  is  just  what  the  prophets  foretold.  They  prophesied  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles.  Hosea  (i.  lo,  and  iL  23)  described  how 
those  who  were  not  within  the  covenant  should  be  brought  into  it 
and  called  by  the  very  name  of  the  Jews  under  the  old  Covenant, 
'  the  people  of  God,'  '  the  beloved  of  the  Lord,'  *  the  sons  of  the 
living  God.'  "And  this  wherever  throughout  the  whole  world 
they  had  been  placed  in  the  contemptuous  position  of  being,  as  he 
expressed  it,  '  no  people.'  ^  Equally  do  we  find  the  rejection  of 
Israel — all  but  a  remnant  of  it — foretold.  Isaiah  (x.  a  a)  stated, 
'  Even  though  the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel  be  as  the  sand 
of  the  seashore,  yet  it  is  only  a  remnant  that  shall  be  saved,  "•  fw 
a.  sharp  and  decisive  sentence  will  the  Lord  execute  upon  the  earth.' 
*  And  similarly  in  an  earlier  chapter  (i.  9)  he  had  foretold  the  com- 


UL  14,  16.]         THE  UNBEUEF  OF  ISRAEL  253 

plete  destruction  of  Israel  with  the  exception  of  a  small  remnant  - 
*  Unless  the  Lord  of  Sabaoth  had  left  us  a  seed,  we  should  have 
been  as  Sodom,  and  we  should  have  been  like  unto  Gomorrah.' 

14-20.  St  Paul  now  states  for  the  purpose  of  refutation  a 
possible  objection.  He  has  just  shown  that  God  chooses  men 
independently  of  their  works  according  to  His  own  free  determina- 
tion, and  the  deduction  is  implied  that  He  is  free  to  choose  or 
reject  members  of  the  chosen  race.  The  objection  which  may  be 
raised  is,  '  if  what  you  say  is  true,  God  is  unjust,'  and  the  argument 
would  probably  be  continued,  '  we  know  God  is  not  unjust,  there- 
fore the  principles  laid  down  are  not  true.'  In  answer,  St.  Paul 
shows  that  they  cannot  be  unjust  or  inconsistent  with  God's  action, 
for  they  are  exactly  those  which  God  has  declared  to  be  His  in  those 
very  Scriptures  on  which  the  Jews  with  whom  St  Paul  is  arguing 
would  especially  rely. 

14.  Ti  o8k  ipoOiur;  see  on  iii.  5,  a  very  similar  passage:  «t  de  9 

adiKia  fffinv  6cov  ducauxrvvriv  «rv»i(rTt)vt,  ri  tpovfitv',  fi^  adiKos  6  Qt6i 
6  (iTi<Pfpi»v  rffp  opyffv ;  .  .  .  fi^  yivovro.  The  expression  is  used  as 
always  to  introduce  an  objection  which  is  stated  only  to  be 
refuted. 

}fif\ :  implying  that  a  negative  answer  may  be  expected,  as  in 
the  instance  just  quoted. 

vapcl  Tw  6c^.      Cf.  ii.  1 1  ov  yap  iori  irpirtnroKtpjria  wapa  r^  6c^ 
£ph.  vi.  9 ;    Prov.  viii.  30,  of  Wisdom  dwelling  with  God,  ^m*?" 

Trap*  ovrw  ap/i6(ov(ra, 

fif|  yiyoiro.  Cf.  iii.  4.  The  expression  is  generally  used  as  here 
to  express  St.  Paul's  horror  at  an  objection  '  which  he  has  stated 
for  the  purpose  of  refutation  and  which  is  blasphemous  in  itself  or 
one  that  his  opponent  would  think  to  be  such.' 

16-10.  According  to  Origen,  followed  by  many  Fathers  and 
some  few  modem  commentators,  the  section  w.  15-19  contains 
not  St  Paul's  own  words,  but  a  continuation  of  the  objection  put 
into  the  mouth  of  his  opponent,  finally  to  be  refuted  by  the 
indignant  disclaimer  of  ver.  ao.  Such  a  construction  which  was 
adopted  in  the  interest  of  free-will  is  quite  contrary  to  the  structure 
of  the  sentence  and  of  the  argument  In  every  case  in  which  fiii 
yivovrm  occurs  it  is  followed  by  an  answer  to  the  objection  direct  or 
indirect.  Moreover  if  this  had  been  the  construction  the  inter- 
rogative sentence  would  not  have  been  introduced  by  the  particle 
lui  expecting  a  negative  answer,  but  would  have  been  in  a  form 
which  would  suggest  an  aflfirmative  reply. 

16.  Ty  Y^P  MuiTil  Xfyct.  The  yap  explains  and  justifies  the 
strong  denial  contained  in  ^ri  ycVotro.  Too  much  stress  must  not 
be  laid  on  the  emphasis  given  to  the  name  by  its  position ;  yet  it  19 
obvious  that  the  instance  chosen  adds  considerably  to  the  strength 


a 54  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  16,  16. 

of  the  argument.  Moses,  if  any  one,  might  be  considered  to  have 
deserved  God's  mercy,  and  the  name  of  Mo^es  would  be  that  most 
respected  by  St.  Paul's  opponents,  Xtyti  without  a  nominative  for 
Gfof  Kfyti  is  a  common  idiom  in  quotations  (ct  Rom.  xv.  lo; 
Gal.  iii.  i6;  Eph.  iv.  8;  v.  14). 

^Xei^au  OK  &V  iXeu),  k.t.X  :  '  I  will  have  mercy  on  whomsoever 
I  have  mercy.'  The  emphasis  is  on  the  iv  av,  and  the  words  are 
quoted  to  mean  that  as  it  is  God  who  has  made  the  offer  of  salva- 
tion to  men,  it  is  for  Him  to  choose  who  are  to  be  the  recipients  of 
His  grace,  and  not  for  man  to  dictate  to  Him.  The  quotation  is 
from  the  LXX  of  Ex.  xxxiii.  19  which  is  accurately  reproduced. 
It  is  a  fairly  accurate  translation  of  the  original,  there  being  only 
a  slight  change  in  the  tenses.  The  Hebrew  is  '  I  am  gracious  to 
whom  I  will  be  gracious,'  the  LXX  *  I  will  be  gracious  to  whom- 
soever I  am  graeious.'  But  St.  Paul  uses  the  words  with  a  some- 
what different  emphasis.  Moses  had  said,  '  Show  me,  I  pray  thee, 
thy  glory.'  And  He  said,  '  I  will  make  all  my  goodness  pass  before 
thee,  and  will  proclaim  the  name  of  the  Lord  before  thee :  and 
I  will  be  gracious  to  whom  I  will  be  gracious,  and  will  show  mercy 
on  whom  I  will  show  mercy.'  The  point  of  the  words  in  the 
original  context  is  rather  the  certainty  of  the  Divine  grace  for  those 
whom  God  has  selected  ;  the  point  which  St.  Paul  wishes  to  prove 
is  the  independence  and  freedom  of  the  Divine  choice. 

Aeticrw  .  .  .  oiKTEipi^aw.  The  difference  between  these  words 
seems  to  be  something  the  same  as  that  between  Xvirrj  and  obvyrf  in 
ver.  2.  The  first  meaning  'compassion,'  the  second  *  distress '  or 
'pain,'  such  as  expresses  itself  in  outward  manifestation.  {Ci, 
Godet,  ad  loc.) 

16.  apa  ooK  introduces  as  an  inference  from  the  special  instance 
given  the  general  principle  of  God's  method  of  action.  Cf.  ver.  8 
TovT  fomv,  ver.  1 1  Iva,  where  the  logical  method  in  each  case  is  the 
same  although  the  form  of  expression  is  different. 

Tou  GcXoKTos,  K.T.X.  '  God's  mercy  is  in  the  power  not  of  human 
desire  or  human  effort,  but  of  the  Divine  compassion  itself.'  The  geni- 
tives are  dependent  on  the  idea  of  mercy  deduced  from  the  previous 
verse.     With  di^ovros  may  be  compared  Jo.  i.  la,  13  tb<j»Ktv  avrois 

f^ovaiav  rtKva  Qfov  ytvfcr6at  .  .  .  ot  oin  i^  ai/iara)i>,  ovhi  fx  6*\TjfiaToi 
(rapKoi,  oiSf  «  deXrjfxaTos  dvbpos,  aXX'  «<t  Qtoi  fytvvT)dr]arap,  The  meta- 
phor of  TOO  rpixoirro%  is  a  favourite  one  with  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  ix. 
24,  26;  Phil.  ii.  16;  Gal.  ii.  2  ;  v.  7). 

In  vv.  7-13  St.  Paul  might  seem  to  be  dealing  with  families  or 
grouDS  of  people;  here  however  he  is  distinctly  dealing  with  in- 
diviouals  and  lays  down  the  principle  that  God's  grace  does  not 
necessarily  depend  upon  anything  but  God's  will.  '  Not  that 
I  havf  not  rea  ons  to  do  it,  but  thai  1  need  not,  in  distributing  oi 
mercies  which  have  no  foundation  in  the  merits  of  men,  rendei 


IX.  le,  17.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  2$$ 

any  other  reason  or  motive  but  mine  own  will,  whereby  I  may  do 
what  I  will  with  mine  own.'     Hammond. 

The  MSS.  vary  curiously  in  the  orthography  of  iKfioa,  iXtdw.  In  ver.  i6 
KABDEFG  support  (\(6.a)  {iXtSivros),  B^K  &c.  (\€f<u  {(Xeovvros) ;  in 
ver.  1 8  the  position  is  reversed,  lAcdw  (lA.«a)  having  only  D  F  G  in  its 
favour;  in  Jude  33  iKtaat  {iKtarf)  ii  supported  by  K  B  alone.  See  WH. 
Introd.  iL  App.  p.  i66. 

17.  X/yci  yAp  ^  yp^'^'f*^'  '•'^^  ^*  *"  additional  proof  showing 
that  the  principle  just  enunciated  (in  ver.  i6)  is  true  not  merely  in 
an  instance  of  God's  mercy,  but  also  of  His  severity,  take  the 
language  which  the  Scripture  tells  us  was  addressed  to  Pharaoh.' 
On  the  form  of  quotation  cf.  Gal.  iii.  8,  aa  ;  there  was  probably  no 
reason  for  the  change  of  expression  from  ver.  15;  both  were  well- 
known  forms  used  in  quoting  the  O.  T.  and  both  could  be  used 
indifferently. 

Ty  ^apacS.  The  selection  of  Moses  suggested  as  a  natural 
contrast  that  of  his  antagonist  Pharaoh.  In  God's  dealings  with 
these  two  individuals,  St.  Paul  finds  examples  of  His  dealings  with 
the  two  main  classes  of  mankind. 

CIS  ttfiTo  TooTo,  K.T.X. :  taken  with  considerable  variations,  which  in 
some  cases  seem  to  approach  the  Hebrew,  from  the  LXX  of  Ex.  ix. 
16  (see  below).  The  quotation  is  taken  from  the  words  which  Moses 
was  directed  to  address  to  Pharaoh  after  the  sixth  plague,  that  of 
boils.  '  For  now  I  had  put  forth  my  hand  and  smitten  thee  and 
thy  people  with  pestilence,  and  thou  hadst  been  cut  off  from  the 
earth ;  but  in  very  deed  for  this  cause  have  I  made  thee  to  stand, 
for  to  show  thee  my  power,  and  that  my  name  may  be  declared 
throughout  all  the  earth.'  The  words  in  the  original  mean  that 
God  has  prevented  Pharaoh  from  being  slain  by  the  boils  in  order 
that  He  might  more  completely  exhibit  His  power ;  St.  Paul  by 
slightly  changing  the  language  generalizes  the  statement  and 
applies  the  words  to  the  whole  appearance  of  Pharaoh  in  the  field 
of  history.  Just  as  the  career  of  Moses  exhibits  the  Divine  mercy, 
so  the  career  of  Pharaoh  exhibits  the  Divine  severity,  and  in  both 
cases  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  is  vindicated. 

^^i^ycipa  :  *  I  have  raised  thee  up,  placed  thee  in  the  field  of 
history.'  There  are  two  main  interpretations  of  this  word  pos- 
sible, (i)  It  has  been  taken  to  mean,  *  I  have  raised  thee  up 
from  sickness,'  so  Gif.  and  others,  '  I  have  preserved  thee  and  not 
taken  thy  life  as  I  might  have  done.'  This  is  in  all  probability  the 
meaning  of  the  original  Hebrew  'I  made  thee  to  stand,'  and 
certainly  that  of  the  LXX,  which  paraphrases  the  words  Sierriprjdns. 
It  is  supported  also  by  a  reading  in  the  Hexapla  Stenj/jjjcrd  <re,  by  the 
Targnm  of  Onkelos  Susttnui  U  ut  ostenderem  tibt,  and  the  Arabic 
Tt  reservavi  iii  ostenderem  tibi.  Although  f'^eyfiptiv  does  not  seem 
to  occur  in  this  sense,  it  is  used  i  Cor.  vi.  14  of  resurrection  from 


i$6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  17 

the  dead,  and  the  simple  verb  iyrlptiv  in  James  v.  15  means  *rais« 
ing  from  sickness.'  The  words  may  possibly  therefore  have  this 
sense,  but  the  passage  as  quoted  by  St.  Paul  could  not  be  so  inter- 
preted. Setting  aside  the  fact  that  he  probably  altered  the  reading 
of  the  LXX  purposely,  as  the  words  occur  here  without  any  allusion 
to  the  previous  sickness,  the  passage  would  be  meaningless  unless 
reference  were  made  to  the  original,  and  would  not  justify  the 
deduction  drawn  from  it  ty  di  6(X.ti  vKkripvvtt. 

(2)  The  correct  interpretation  (so  Calv.  Beng.  Beyschlag  Go. 
Mey.  Weiss.  Lips.  Gore)  is  therefore  one  which  makes  St.  Paul 
generalize  the  idea  of  the  previous  passage,  and  this  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  almost  technical  meaning  of  the  verb  (^tydjKw  in  the 
LXX.  It  is  used  of  God  calling  up  the  actors  on  the  stage  of 
history.  So  of  the  Chaldaeans  Hab.  i.  6  iion  tSoii  iyat  t$ty(ipa»  rowi 
Xa\8aiovs  :  of  a  shepherd  for  the  people  Zech.  xi.  1 6  dion  liov  tya 
e^ty«ip(o  TTOifiiva  iiri  rffv  yfjv :  of  a  great  nation  and  kings  Jer.  xxvii. 
41  Idoii  Xaif  ipxtrai  dn6  fioppa,  Kai  <e6vos  piyn  Kn\  /3a(r»X*Ir  iroXXoi 
f^tytpdrjaovrai  an  (crxarov  r^t  y^s.  This  interpretation  seems  to  be 
supported  by  the  Samaritan  Version,  subsistere  te  feci,  and  cer- 
tainly by  the  Syriac,  ob  id  te  consttiui  u/  ostenderem ;  and  it  ex- 
presses just  the  idea  which  the  context  demands,  that  God  had 
declared  that  Pharaoh's  position  was  owing  to  His  sovereign  will 
and  pleasure — in  order  to  carry  out  His  Divine  purpose  and  plan. 

The  interpretation  which  makes  t^fydpav  mean  '  call  into  being.' 
*  create,'  has  no  support  in  the  usage  of  the  word,  although  not 
inconsistent  with  the  context ;  and  '  to  rouse  to  anger '  (Aug.  dc 
W.  Fri.  &c.)  would  require  some  object  such  as  6vti6v,  as  in 
2  Mace.  xiii.  4. 

The  readings  of  the  Latin  VeriioDB  are  as  follows :  Qttia  in  ktt  ^tum 
ixcitavi  U,  d  e  f,  Valg. ;  quia  <td  hoc  ipsutn  te  tuscitavi,  Orig.-lat. ;  quia  in 
hoc  ipsum  excitavi  te  suscitavi  te,  g ;  quia  in  hoc  ipsutn  te  servctvi,  Ambrstr., 
who  adds  alii  codices  sic  habtnt,  ad  hoc  ti  suscitavi.  Sive  stwavi  rive 
suscitavi  unus  est  sensus. 

The  reading  of  the  LXX  i«  Kai  IvtKev  rovrov  tUtrtjprfOjjf  tva  Mti^mpuu  iv 
aol  Tr)v  Iffxvy  fiov,  koI  otton  StayycAp  ri  ivopA  pov  iv  ir&aig  rp  yp.  St.  Paul's 
variations  are  interesting. 

(i )  tU  avrh  Tovro  is  certainly  a  better  and  more  emphatic  representation 
of  the  Hebrew  thtm  the  somewhat  weak  rovrov  iptittv.  The  expression  is 
characteristically  Pauline  (Rom.  xiii.  6;  a  Cor.  v.  5;  Epli.  tI.  18,  aa ; 
Col.  iv.  8). 

(a)  i^iiynpd  at  represents  better  than  the  LXX  the  grammar  of  the  Hebrew, 
'  I  made  thee  to  stand,*  but  not  the  sense.  The  variants  of  the  Hexapla 
{JiitTTipy^aa)  and  other  versions  suggest  that  a  more  literal  translation  was  in 
existence,  but  the  word  was  very  probably  St.  Paul's  own  choice,  selected  to 
biing  out  more  emphatically  the  meaning  of  the  passage  as  he  understood  it. 

(3)  ivbH^oifWn  iv  aoi.  St  Paul  here  follows  the  incorrect  translation  of 
ihe  LXX.  The  Hebrew  gives  as  the  purpose  of  God's  action  that  Pharaoh 
may  know  God's  power,  and  as  a  further  consequence  that  God's  name  may 
be  known  in  the  world.  The  LXX  assimilates  the  fint  clanae  to  the  Mcood 
and  gives  it  a  similar  meaning. 


iX.  17,  18.]         THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  957 

(4)  inan .  .  .  8»o».  Here  St.  Paul  obliterates  the  distinction  which  the 
LXX  (following  the  Hebrew)  had  made  of  tva  .  . .  Swm.  But  this  alteration 
was  only  a  natural  result  of  the  change  in  the  LXX  itself,  by  which  the  two 
clauses  had  become  coordinate  in  thought. 

(5)  For  ivvafuv  the  LXX  read*  lax'iv.  The  reading  of  St.  Paul  appeara 
u  a  variant  in  die  Hexapla. 

18.  apa  oSv.  Just  as  ver.  i6  sums  up  the  argument  of  the  first  part 
of  this  paragraph,  so  this  verse  sums  up  the  argument  as  it  has 
been  amplified  and  expounded  by  the  additional  example. 

anXtjpoi'ei :  '  hardens ' ;  the  word  is  suggested  by  the  narrative  of 
Exodus  from  which  the  former  quotation  is  taken  (Ex.  iv.  21 ;  vii. 
3;  ix.  la;  X.  20,  27;  xi.io;  xiv.  4,  8,  17)  and  it  must  be  translated  in 
accordance  with  Uie  O.  T.  usage,  without  any  attempt  at  softening 
or  evading  its  natural  meaning. 

The  Divine  Sovereignty  in  the  Old  Testament. 

A  second  objection  is  answered  and  a  second  step  in  the  argu- 
ment laid  down.  God  is  not  unjust  if  He  select  one  man  or  one 
nation  for  a  high  purpose  and  another  for  a  low  purpose,  one  man 
for  His  mercy  and  another  for  His  anger.  As  is  shown  by  the 
Scriptures,  He  has  absolute  freedom  in  the  exercise  of  His  Divine 
sovereignty.  St.  Paul  is  arguing  against  a  definite  opponent, 
a  typical  Jew,  and  he  argues  from  premises  the  validity  of  which 
diat  Jew  must  admit,  namely,  the  conception  of  God  contained  in 
the  O.  T.  There  this  is  clearly  laid  down— the  absolute  sove- 
reignty of  God,  that  is  to  say.  His  power  and  His  right  to  dispose 
the  course  of  human  actions  as  He  will.  He  might  select  Israel 
for  a  high  oflSce,  and  Edom  for  a  degraded  part:  He  might 
select  Moses  as  an  example  of  His  mercy,  Pharaoh  as  an  example 
of  His  anger.  If  this  be  granted  He  may  (on  grounds  which  the 
Jew  must  admit),  if  He  will,  select  some  Jews  and  some  Gentiles 
for  the  high  purpose  of  being  members  of  His  Messianic  kingdom, 
while  He  rejects  to  an  inferior  part  the  mass  of  the  chosen  people. 

This  is  St.  Paul's  argument  Hence  there  is  no  necessity  for 
softening  (as  some  have  attempted  to  do)  the  apparently  harsh 
expression  of  ver.  18,  'whom  He  will  He  hardeneth.'  St.  Paul 
says  no  more  than  he  had  said  in  i.  30-a8,  where  he  described  the 
final  wickedness  of  the  world  as  in  a  sense  the  result  of  the  Divine 
action.  In  both  passages  he  is  isolating  one  side  of  the  Divine 
action ;  and  in  making  theological  deductions  from  his  language 
these  passages  must  be  balanced  by  others  which  imply  the  Divine 
love  and  human  freedom.  It  will  be  necessary  to  do  this  at  the 
close  of  the  discussion.  At  present  we  must  be  content  with 
St.  Paul's  conclusion,  that  God  as  sovereign  has  the  absolute  right 
and  power  of  disDOsing  of  men's  lives  as  He  will 


»59  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IX.  18,  10 

We  must  not  soften  the  passage.  On  the  other  hand,  we  musi 
not  read  into  it  more  than  it  contains :  as,  for  example,  Calvin 
does.  He  imports  various  extraneous  ideas,  that  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  election  to  salvation  and  of  reprobation  to  death,  that  men 
were  created  that  they  might  perish,  that  God's  action  not  only 
might  be  but  was  arbitrary :  Hoc  entm  vult  efficere  apud  not,  ui 
in  ea  quae  apparet  inter  electos  et  reprobos  diversitate,  mens  nostra 
contenta  sit  quod  ita  visum  futrit  Deo,  alios  illuminare  in  salutem, 
alios  in  mortem  excaecare  . . .  Corruit  ergo  frivolum  illudeffugium  quod 
de  praescientia  Scholastici  habent.  Neque  enim  praevideri  ruinam  im- 
piorum  a  Domino  Paulus  tradit,  sed  eius  consilio  et  voluniate  ordinari, 
quemadmodum  et  Solomo  docet.  non  modo  praecognitum  fuisse  impiorum 
inter itum,  sed  impios  ipso s  fuisse  destinato  creatos  ut  perirent. 

The  Apostle  says  nothing  about  eternal  life  or  death.  He  says 
nothing  about  the  principles  upon  which  God  does  act ;  he  never 
says  that  His  actior  it  arbitrary  (he  will  prove  eventually  that  it 
is  not  so),  but  only  that  it  it  oe  no  Jew  who  accepts  the  Scripture 
has  any  right  to  complain.  He  never  says  or  implies  that  Goo 
las  created  roan  for  the  purpose  of  his  damnation.  What  he  does 
say  is  that  in  His  government  of  the  world  God  reserves  to  Him- 
self perfect  freedom  of  dealing  with  man  on  His  own  conditions 
and  not  on  man's.  So  Gore,  op.  cit.  p.  40,  sums  up  the  argument : 
'  God  always  revealed  Himself  as  retaining  His  liberty  of  choice, 
as  refusing  to  tie  Himself,  as  selecting  the  historic  examples  of 
His  hardening  judgement  and  His  compassionate  good  will,  so  as 
to  baflBe  all  attempts  on  our  part  to  create  His  vocations  by  our 
own  efforts,  or  anticipate  the  persons  whom  He  will  use  for  His 
purposes  of  mercy  or  of  judgement' 

18.  cpcis  ftoi  o8r.  Hardly  are  the  last  words  hv  hi  B(\u  o-xXi;- 
pCvei  out  of  St.  Paul's  mouth  than  he  imagines  his  opponent  in 
controversy  catching  at  an  objection,  and  he  at  once  takes  it  up  and 
forestalls  him.  By  substituting  this  phrase  for  the  more  usual 
Tt  ovv  epovfMfu,  St.  Paul  seems  to  identify  himself  less  with  his 
opponent's  objection- 

fUH  oZy  ig  the  reading  of  K*  A  B 1 »  Grig.  1/3  Jo.-Dannase. ;  cZv  fio*  of  the 
TR.  U  supported  by  D  E  F  G  K  L  Sec,  Vnlg.  Boh.,  Orig.  a/3  and  Oiig.-l«L 
Cbryt.  Thdrt.     It  is  the  sabstitution  of  the  more  utaal  order. 

Ti  In  )i^fi<|>cTai :  '  why  considering  that  it  is  God  who  hardens 
me  does  He  still  find  fault?'  Why  does  he  first  produce  a 
position  of  disobedience  to  His  will,  and  then  blame  me  for  falling 
into  it  ?  The  tn  implies  that  a  changed  condition  has  been  pro- 
duced which  makes  the  continuation  of  the  previous  results  sur- 
prising. So  Rom.  iii.  7  *'  ^<  ^  dXrjdtia  roi  Qtov  iv  r^  (/i«p  ^nxTftari 
iTiffUOTtvatv  fit  nyp  So^av  avrov,  ri  tn  Kayit  its  6ftapra>k6t  itpumiuUp 
Rom.  vi.  t  omMc  aurtdofoiup  r^  iftaprifj  wat  m  (^aofttp  i»  ovry ; 


IX.  10-21.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  »59 

Tf  In  nifupmu  i»  read  by  TR.  and  RV.  with  K  A  K  L  P  &c.,  Vnlg.  Syrr. 
Bob. ,  and  many  Fathers.    B  D  E  F  G,  Orig.-lat.  Hieron.  insert  oZv  after  tL 

^owkrutan,  which  occurs  in  only  two  other  passages  in  the  N.  T. 
(Acts  xxvii.  43 ;  i  Pet  iv.  3)  seems  to  be  substituted  for  the 
ordinary  word  BiKtfua  as  implying  more  definitely  the  deliberate 
purpose  of  God. 

dkd^oTTjKC     Perfect  with  present  sense;   cf.  Rom.  xiii.  a  Sxrrt 

i  avTvrawofUVOt  ttj  t^ovtriq  rg  rov  Qtov  biarayfi  dv6e<rrrjKtv,  Winer, 
§  xl.  4,  p.  34a,  E.  T.  The  meaning  is  not :  *  who  is  able  to 
resist,'  but '  what  man  is  there  who  is  resisting  God's  will  ?'  There 
is  no  resistance  being  offered  by  the  man  who  disobeys ;  he  is  only 
doing  what  God  has  willed  that  he  should  do. 

20.  &  ai^pwire.  The  form  in  which  St.  Paul  answers  this  question 
is  rhetorical,  but  it  is  incorrect  to  say  that  he  refuses  to  argue. 
The  answer  he  gives,  while  administering  a  severe  rebuke  to  his 
opponent,  contains  also  a  logical  refutation.  He  reminds  him 
that  the  real  relation  of  every  man  to  God  (hence  &  avOpairf)  is 
that  of  created  to  Creator,  and  hence  not  only  has  he  no  right 
to  complain,  but  also  God  has  the  Creator's  right  to  do  what  He 
will  with  those  whom  He  has  Himself  moulded  and  fashioned. 

|tCKOury«  :  '  nay  rather,'  a  strong  correction.  The  word  seems 
to  belong  almost  exclusively  to  N.  T.  Greek,  and  would  be  impossible 
at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence  in  classical  Greek.  Cf.  Rom.  x.  18; 
PhiL  iii.  8;  but  probably  not  Luke  xi.  a8. 

J(  &v9pca9t  ntvovvft  it  read  by  K  A  B  (bnt  B  om.  7c  at  in  Phil.  iii.  8), 
Orig.  1/4  Jo.-Damasc. ;  mvovvft  is  omitted  by  DFG,  defg  Vulg., 
Orig.-lat.,  and  inserted  before  S)  avOpw-nt  by  N'D'KLF  and  later  MSS., 
Orig.  3/4,  Chrys.  Theod.-mops  Thdrt.  &c.  The  same  MSS.  (F  G  d  f  g)  and 
Orig.-lat.  omit  the  word  again  in  x.  18,  and  in  Phil.  iii.  8  BDEFGKL 
and  other  authorities  read  piiv  oZv  alone.  The  expression  was  omitted  as 
nnusnal  by  many  copyists,  and  when  restored  in  the  margin  crept  into 
a  different  position  in  the  verse. 

1*^  epei  rh  irXa'afio,  icT.X.  The  conception  of  the  absolute  power 
of  the  Creator  over  His  creatures  as  represented  by  the  power  of 
the  potter  over  his  clay  was  a  well-known  O.  T.  idea  which 
St.  Paul  shared  with  his  opponent  and  to  which  therefore  he  could 
appeal  with  confidence.  Both  the  idea  and  the  language  are  bor- 
rowed from  Is.  xlv.  8—10  e'-yw  eliii  Kvpios  6  icricras  ae'  iroiov  ^iXriov 
KartiTKevaa-a  ias  TrrfXov  Kfpaftfcts  ,  ,  .  (iif  ipt'i  6  irTjXos  ra  mepafitl  Tt 
votftr,  on  ovK  tpyd^^j)  ov8e  fX"^  X^'P"*'?  ^"7  oiroKpi6rja-fTat  to  n\d(Tp.a 
Vpbs  rov  n\d(TavTa  avro'  and  Is.  XXix.  l6  ovx  as  6  TrijXis  rov  Kfpa- 
fifas  \oyia6>]<Tt(Td( ;  (ir)  ipel  to  jrXaa-^a  t^  rtXaaavTi  avro  Ov  av  fj.t 
(irXacras ;    ^  ro  iroirjfui  tw  iroiTjaavri   Ov   crvvtrms  fit   enoirjcras  J    Cf.  also 

Is.  Ixiv.  8;   jer.  xviii.  6;  Eccles.  xxxvi.  [xxxiii.]  13. 

21.  fi  ouK  fxei  c|ou<Tiai' :  '  if  you  do  not  accept  this  you  will  be 
compelled  to  confess  that  the  potter  has  not  complete  control  over 
his  cla? — an  absurd  idea.'  The  unusual  position  of  rov  nijXov,  which 


36o  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [IX.  21,  22 

should  of  course  be  taken  with  i^vtrUa,  is  intended  to  emphasize 
the  contrast  between  Ktpofuvt  and  inik6t,  as  suggesting  the  true 
relations  of  man  and  God. 

f  upo/Aaros  :  '  the  lump  of  clay.'  Cf  Rom.  xL  i6 ;  i  Cor.  v.  6,  7  j 
Gal.  V.  9.  The  exact  point  to  which  this  metaphor  is  to  be  pressed 
may  be  doubtful,  and  it  must  always  be  balanced  by  language  used 
elsewhere  in  St,  Paul's  Epistles ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  argue  that 
there  is  no  idea  of  creation  implied :  the  potter  is  represented  not 
merely  as  adapting  for  this  or  that  purpose  a  vessel  already  made, 
but  as  making  out  of  a  mass  of  shapeless  material  one  to  which  he 
gives  a  character  and  form  adapted  for  different  uses,  some 
honourable,  some  dishonourable. 

8  ytev  CIS  riiti]v  aK<uos,  icT.X. :   cf.  Wisd.  jn.  7  (see   below) : 

2  Tim.  ii.  20  *v  luyaikrj  a  oiV/f  ovk  coti  ^dyov  OKtvti  XP*"^^  '^ 
apyvpa,  dWa  koI  ^vKiva  Koi  oaTfiaKivOf  Koi  A  ixiv  (tr  Tiftfjv^  6  dc  tls  drifxiav. 

But  there  the  side  of  human  responsibility  is  emphasized,  iaw  ovk  tu 
(KKaddprj  iavrov  dtrb  tovtuv^  eorat  VKtvot  cir  Ttjifiy,  «c,r.X. 

The  point  of  the  argument  is  clear.  Is  there  any  injustice  if 
God  has  first  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart  and  then  condemned  him, 
if  Israel  is  rejected  and  then  blamed  for  being  rejected  ?  The  answer 
is  twofold.  In  w.  19-ai  God's  conduct  is  shown  to  be  right  under 
all  circumstances.  In  w.  aa  sq.  it  is  explained  or  perhaps  rather 
hinted  that  He  has  a  beneficent  purpose  in  view.  In  vv.  19-21 
St.  Paul  shows  that  for  God  to  be  unjust  is  impossible.  As  He  has 
made  man,  man  is  absolutely  in  His  power.  Just  as  we  do  not 
consider  the  potter  blameable  if  he  makes  a  vessel  for  a  dishonour- 
able purpose,  so  we  must  not  consider  God  unjust  if  He  chooses  to 
make  a  man  like  Pharaoh  for  a  dishonourable  part  in  history.  Fosf- 
quam  demonstratum  est,  Deum  ita  egisse,  demonstraium  ttiam  est  omni- 
bus, qui  Mosi  credunt,  mm  convenienier  suae  iustitiae  egisse.   Wetstein. 

As  in  iii.  5  St.  Paul  brings  the  argument  back  to  the  ab  olute 
fact  of  Gk)d's  justice,  so  here  he  ends  with  the  absolute  fact  ol 
God's  power  and  right.  God  had  not  (as  the  Apostle  will  show) 
acted  arbitrarily,  but  if  He  had  done  so  what  was  man  that  he 
should  complain  ? 

22.  61  8e  Q{kw  6  Geis,  11.T.X. :  '  but  if  God,  &c.,  what  will  you  say 
then  ? '  like  our  English  idiom  '  What  and  if.'  There  is  no  apo- 
dosis  to  the  sentence,  but  the  construction,  although  grammatically 
incomplete,  is  by  no  means  unusual :  cf.  Jo.  vi.  61,  62  roOro  vnas 

(TKavbaK'i^ft  j  iav  oiv  BeapiJTt  top  vlov  rov  avOpanov  ava^aivovra  Snov 
fjv  TO  npoTfpov ;  Acts  Xxiii.  9  oidtv  kok^v  *vpi(TKOfifV  iv  t«  dvdpimtif 
rovTtd'  (i  8f  wvfifia  iXdXtjtrfv  avr^  ^  ayyrXorJ  Luke  xix.  4 1,  42  Koi  cat 
rfyyiatUy  i8i»v  t^k  iroXu>  (xXavo-cf  ««•'  aifT^  Xcy<uv  on  E{  fyvas  iv  t^  hl'*P9 

ravTT]  Koi  <ri  ra  np6t  tlprivrfv.  There  is  no  difficulty  (as  Oltramare 
seems  to  think)  in  the  length  of  the  sentence.  All  other  con- 
structions, such  as   an  attempt  to  find  an  apodosis  in  «■!  2m 


IX.  22.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  l6l 

yvrnpiofi,  in  ot«  Koi  tKaKttrtv,  Of  even  in  ver.  31  f^  o^"  tpovfuv,  are 
needlessly  harsh  and  unreal. 

The  S(  (which  differs  from  oSv :  cf.  Jo.  vi.  6a ;  Acts  xxiii.  9), 
although  not  introducing  a  strong  opposition  to  the  previous 
sentence,  implies  a  change  of  thought.  Enough  has  been  said  to 
preserve  the  independence  of  the  Divine  will,  and  St.  Paul  suggests 
another  aspect  of  the  question,  which  will  be  expounded  more 
fully  later ; — one  not  in  any  way  opposed  to  the  freedom  of  the 
Divine  action,  but  showing  as  a  matter  of  fact  how  this  freedom 
has  been  exhibited.  '  But  if  God,  notwithstanding  His  Divine 
sovereignty,  has  in  His  actual  dealings  with  mankind  shown  such 
unexpected  mercy,  what  becomes  of  your  complaints  of  injustice  ?' 

OAuK.  There  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  whether  this 
should  be  translated  '  because  God  wishes/  or  '  although  God 
wishes.'  (i)  In  the  former  case  (so  de  W.  and  most  commenta- 
tors) the  words  mean,  '  God  because  He  wishes  to  show  the 
terrible  character  of  His  wrath  restrains  His  hands,  until,  as  in  the 
case  of  Pharaoh,  He  exhibits  His  power  by  a  terrible  overthrow. 
He  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart  in  order  that  the  judgement  might 
be  more  terrible.'  (2)  In  the  latter  case  (Mey.-W.  Go.  Lips. 
Gif.),  *  God,  although  His  righteous  anger  might  naturally  lead  to 
His  making  His  power  known,  has  through  His  kindness  delayed 
and  borne  vtith  those  who  had  become  objects  that  deserved  His 
wrath.'  That  this  is  correct  is  shown  by  the  words  iv  noXk^  nanpo- 
6vni<f,  which  are  quite  inconsistent  with  the  former  interpretation, 
and  by  the  similar  passage  Rom.  ii.  4,  where  it  is  distinctly  stated 
TO  ;^pij(rTii'  Tov  0(01;  elf  fterdvoiav  at  aytt.  Even  if  St.  Paul  occa- 
sionally contradicts  himself,  that  is  no  reason  for  making  him  do  so 
unnecessarily.  As  Liddon  says  the  three  points  added  in  this 
sentence,  the  natural  wrath  of  God  against  sin  and  the  violation  of 
His  law,  the  fact  that  the  objects  of  His  compassion  were  agtwi 
opy^s,  and  that  they  were  fitted  for  destruction,  all  intensify  the 
difficulty  of  the  Divine  restraint. 

ji'ScilaaOai  rfiy  ipyi\y  xai  yi'wpiaeu  r6  Suyarftr  afrrou  are  reminis- 
cences of  the  language  used  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh,  Mfi$»»iJuu  h 

vK€ui)  6pYi)s :  '  vessels  which  deserve  God's  anger ' ;  the  image  of 
the  previous  verse  is  continued.  The  translation  'destined  for 
God's  anger '  would  require  vKtii)  tls  opyi^v :  and  the  change  of  con- 
struction from  the  previous  verse  must  be  intentional. 

KaTT|pTia|ji^i'a  cis  d-iroSXeiaf :  *  prepared  for  destruction.'  The 
construction  is  purposely  different  from  that  of  the  corresponding 
words  A  irpoTjToifiaaev.  St.  Paul  does  not  say  '  whom  God  pre- 
pared for  destruction '  (Mey.),  although  in  a  sense  at  any  rate  he 
could  have  done  so  (ver.  18  and  i.  34,  &c.),  for  that  would  conflict 
with  the  aritument  di  the  sentence;  nor  does  he  say  that  the^ 


26a  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [IX.  22,  2t 

had  fitted  themselves  for  destruction  (Chrys.  Theoph.  Oecum 
Groiius  Beng.),  although,  as  the  argument  in  chap,  x  shows,  he 
could  have  done  so,  for  this  would  have  been  to  impair  the  con- 
ception of  God's  freedom  of  action  which  at  present  he  wishes  to 
emphasize ;  but  he  says  just  what  is  necessary  for  his  immediate 
purpose — they  were  fitted  for  eternal  destruction  {anaXfia  opp.  to 
iroTr,  ia).  That  is  the  point  to  which  he  wishes  to  attract  our 
attention. 

23.  KOI  ifo  yi^wpia^.  These  words  further  develop  and  explain 
God's  action  so  as  to  silence  any  objection.  St.  Paul  states  that 
God  has  not  only  shown  great  long-suffering  in  bearing  with  those 
fitted  for  destruction,  but  has  done  so  in  order  to  be  able  to  show 
mercy  to  those  whom  He  has  called :  the  Kai  therefore  couples  ha 
yvwpiiTD  in  thought  with  ev  noWj)  naxpodviiiq.  St.  Paul  is  no  longer 
(see  ver.  24)  confining  himself  to  the  special  case  of  Pharaoh, 
although  he  still  remembers  it,  as  his  language  shows,  but  he  is 
considering  the  whole  of  God's  dealings  with  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
and  is  laying  down  the  principles  which  will  afterwards  be  worked 
out  in  full— that  the  Jews  had  deserved  God's  wrath,  but  that  He 
had  borne  with  them  with  great  long-suffering  both  for  their  own 
sakes  and  for  the  ultimate  good  of  His  Church.  In  these  verses,  as 
in  the  expression  fj  kut  WKoyfjv  npoBtais,  St.  Paul  is  in  fact  hinting 
at  the  course  of  the  future  argument,  and  in  that  connexion  they 
must  be  understood. 

On  the  exact  construction  of  thete  words  there  has  been  great  Tariety  of 
opinion,  and  it  may  be  convenient  to  mention  some  divergent  views. 
(i)  W'H.  on  the  authority  of  H,  several  minuscules,  Vulg.  Boh.  Sah.,  Orig.-lat 
3/3  omit  Kai  This  makes  the  construction  simpler,  but  probably  for  that  very 
reason  should  be  rejected.  A  reviser  or  person  quoting  would  naturally  omit 
cai :  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why  it  should  be  inserted ;  moreover  on  soch 
apoint  as  this  the  authority  of  versions  is  slighter,  since  to  omit  a  pleonastic  vol 
would  come  within  the  ordinary  latitude  of  interpretation  necessary  for  their 
purpose.  There  is  some  resemblance  to  rvi.  27.  In  both  cases  we  find  the 
same  MS.  supporting  a  reading  which  we  should  like  to  accept,  but  which 
has  much  the  appearance  of  being  an  obvious  correction,  (a)  Calv.  Grot, 
de  W.  Alf.  and  others  make  Kai  couple  OiXoiy  and  Iva  yrupiff^.  But 
this  obliges  us  to  lake  Bixotv  .  .  .  ivhu^aaOoi  as  expressing  the  pnrpoM 
of  the  sentence  which  is  both  impossible  Greek  and  gives  a  meaning 
inconsistent  with  ftaKpoOvpiia.  (3)  Fri.  Beyschlag  and  others  couple  iva 
yroipioji  and  di  dirw^^fiav ;  but  this  is  to  read  an  idea  of  purpose  into 
MaTTjpTiafjLfva  which  it  does  not  here  possess.  (4)  To  make  leal  tva 
give  the  apodosis  of  the  sentence  tl  St  rjityKfv  (Ols.  Ewald,  &c.),  or  to 
create  a  second  senience  repeating  el,  «cu  €i  fi-a  .  .  .  ^supposing  a  second 
rllipse),  or  to  find  a  verb  hidden  in  (KoXtaty,  supposing  that  St.  Paul  meant 
to  write  Kai  d  'iva  yvwpiay  .  .  .  (Kaktafv  but  changed  the  construction  and  put 
the  verb  into  a  r';lative  sentence  (,Go  Oltramare);  all  these  are  quite  im- 
possible and  quite  unnecessary  constructions. 

T&r  vXouTor,  K.T.X. :  cf.  ii.  4 ;  £ph.  iii.  16  mark  ri  wkovn$  r^t  ^i$n* 


IX.  23-26]         THE    UNBELIEF  OP   ISRAEl  263 

ft  irpoT]Toi|jia<rci'  els  86|ar  :  the  best  commentary  on  these  w<Mrds 

is  Rom.  viii.  28-30. 

We  may  note  the  very  striking  nse  made  of  this  metaphor  of  the  potter'i 
wheel  and  the  cup  by  Browning,  Rabbi  ben  Etra,  xxvi-xudi.  W«  may 
especially  illnstrate  the  words  a  wpoijToifiarrfv  tU  Sufor. 

But  I  need  now  as  then, 

Thee,  God,  who  mouldest  men ; 


So  take  and  nse  thy  work  1 

Amend  what  flaws  may  lark, 
Wtutt  strain  o'  the  stuff,  what  warpings  past  the  afan  I 

My  times  be  in  Thy  hand! 

Perfect  the  cup  as  planned  I 
Let  age  approve  of  youth,  and  death  complete  the  samal 

24.  08s  Kai  ^KdXeorci'  ^(ids  :  '  even  us  whom  He  has  called.' 
The  ovt  is  attracted  into  the  gender  of  ^juar.  The  relative  clause 
gives  an  additional  fact  in  a  manner  not  unusual  with  St.  PauL 

Rom.  i.  6  (P  oU  ia-Tt  Kai  vntit :  a  Tim.  i.  10  (pmria-avros  if  (a>f)v  ncA 
acpdapaiay  8ia  tov  fvayyi\iov,  «ls  t  fTtSrjv  cyi  icfjpv$.    The  Calling  of  the 

Gentiles  is  introduced  not  because  it  was  a  diflRculty  St.  Paul  was 
discussing,  bat  because,  as  he  shows  afterwards,  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles  had  come  through  the  rejection  of  the  Jews. 

There  have  been  two  main  lines  of  interpretation  of  the  above 
three  verses,  (i)  According  to  the  one  taken  above  they  modify 
and  soften  the  apparent  harshness  of  the  preceding  passage  (19-21). 
That  this  is  the  right  view  is  shown  by  the  exegetical  con- 
siderations given  above,  and  by  the  drift  of  the  argument  which 
ctilminating  as  it  does  in  a  reference  to  the  elect  clearly  implies 
some  mitigation  in  the  severity  of  the  Divine  power  as  it  has  been 
described.  (2)  The  second  view  would  make  the  words  of  ver.  22 
continue  and  emphasize  this  severity  of  tone :  '  And  even  if  God  has 
borne  with  the  reprobate  for  a  time  only  in  order  to  exhibit  more 
clearly  the  terror  of  His  wrath,  and  in  order  to  reveal  His  mercy 
to  the  elect,  even  then  what  right  have  you — man  that  you  are — 
to  complain  ?'  Cf.  Calvin :  jEa  si  dominus  ad  aliquod  tempus  patienter 
sustinet .  .  .  ad  demonstranda  suae  severiiatis  iudicia  ,  .  .  ad  viriutem 
suamillusirandam,.  .  . praeterea  quo  inde  notior  fiat  et  clarius  elucescat 
suae  in  electos  misericordiae  amplitudo :  quid  in  hoc  disptnsatione 
misericordiae  dignum? 

26.  6s  xai :  '  and  this  point,  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles,  is  foretold  by  the  prophet'  St.  Paul  now 
proceeds  to  give  additional  force  to  his  argument  by  a  series  of 
quotations  from  the  O.  T.,  which  are  added  as  a  sort  of  appendix 
to  the  first  main  section  of  his  argument 

KoX^aw  .  .  .  \ya.Trf['^irt\v — quoted  from  the  LXX  of  Hosea  ii.  23 
with  some  alterations.  In  the  original  passage  the  words  refei 
to  the  ten  tribes.    A  son  and  daughter  of  Hosea  are  named  Lo* 


S64  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [IX.  26,  90. 

ammi, '  not  «  people '  and  Lo-rtihamah,  'without  mercy/  to  signify 
the  fallen  condition  of  the  ten  tribes ;  and  Hosea  prophesies  their 
restoration  (cf.  Hosea  i.  6,  8,  9).  St.  Paul  appMes  the  principle 
which  underlies  these  words,  that  God  can  take  into  His  covenant 
those  who  were  previously  cut  off  from  it,  to  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles.  A  similar  interpretation  of  the  verse  was  held  by  the 
Rabbis.  Pesachim  viil  f.  Dixit  R.  Eliezer:  Non  alia  de  causa  in 
exilium  et  captivitatem  misii  Deut  S.  B.  Israelem  inter  nationet,  nisi 
utfacerent  multos  proselytos  S.  D.  Oseai  ii.  as  (23)  tt  seram  earn 
mihi  in  terram.  Numquid  homo  teminat  satum  nisi  ut  colligai 
multos  coros  iriticif    Wetstein. 

The  LXX  reads  \\t(\am  t^v  o£«  i(Kti\iiinf9f  ni  Ipd  r^  o{>  Xa^  /mv  Aa^t  pa* 
<7  vi,  bat  for  the  firat  clause  which  agrees  with  the  Hebrew  the  Vatican 
rabstitntes  ar^iainiat)  r^c  ovk  ^yamjfiinjp.  St.  Paol  inverts  the  order  of  the 
clauses,  so  that  the  reference  to  rdv  od  \a6y  fwv,  which  seems  particularly  to 
suit  the  Gentiles,  comes  first,  and  for  ipSi  substitutes  KaKitrof  which  naturally 
crept  in  from  the  iKi\ta(v  of  the  previous  verse,  and  changes  the  construc- 
tion of  the  clause  to  suit  the  new  word.  In  the  second  clause  St.  Paul  seems 
to  have  used  a  text  containing  the  reading  of  the  Vatican  MS.,  for  the  latter 
can  hardly  have  been  altered  to  harmonixe  with  him.  St.  Peter  makes  use  of 
the  passage  with  the  reading  of  the  majority  of  MSS. :  0/  wori  oi  ka6t,  vw  M 
Xa^  8<oC,  ol  ovK  fi\tt}ftfvoi,  vw  h\  i\ti)0irTtt  (l  Pet  ii.  lo). 

KoKivm  with  a  double  accusative  can  only  mean  '  I  will  name,' 
although  the  word  has  been  suggested  by  its  previotis  occurrence 
in  another  sense. 

26.  ital  €(rrat,  iv  ry  -r^iry  . . .  ^kci  k.t.X.  St.  Paul  adds  a  passage 
with  a  similar  purport  from  another  part  of  Hosea  (L  10).  The 
meaning  is  the  same  and  the  application  to  the  present  purpose 
based  on  exactly  the  same  principles.  The  habit  had  probably 
arisen  of  quoting  passages  to  prove  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles ;  and 
these  would  become  commonplaces,  which  at  a  not  much  later  date 
might  be  collected  together  in  writing,  see  Hatch,  Essays  in  Biblical 
Greek^  p.  103,  and  cf.  Rom.  iii.  10.  The  only  difference  between 
St.  Paul's  quotation  and  the  LXX  is  that  he  inserts  tKti :  this  insertion 
seems  to  emphasize  the  idea  of  the  place,  and  it  is  somewhat  difficult 
to  understand  what  place  is  intended,  (i)  In  the  original  the  place 
referred  to  is  clearly  Palestine :  and  if  that  be  St.  Paul's  meaning 
he  must  be  supposed  to  refer  to  the  gathering  of  the  nations  at 
Jerusalem  and  the  foundation  of  a  Messianic  kingdom  there 
(cf.  xi.  26).  St.  Paul  is  often  strongly  influenced  by  the  language  and 
even  the  ideas  of  Jewish  eschatology,  although  in  his  more  spiritual 
passages  he  seems  to  be  quite  freed  from  it.  (a)  If  we  neglect 
the  meaning  of  the  original,  we  may  interpret  f«t  of  the  whole 
world.  'Wheresoever  on  earth  there  may  be  Gentiles,  who  nave 
had  to  endure  there  the  reproach  of  being  not  God's  people,  in 
that  place  they  shall  be  called  God's  people,  for  they  will  become 
members  of  His  Chiu-ch  and  it  will  be  anirersaL' 


IX.  27-aa]        THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  96$ 

87,  28.  St  Paul  has  supported  one  side  of  his  statement  from 
the  O.  T.,  namely,  that  Gentiles  should  be  called ;  he  now  passes 
on  to  justify  the  second,  namely,  that  only  a  remnant  of  the  Jews 
should  be  saved. 

27.  idr  {}  4  dpi9fi<t . . .  4tI  T<i«  y^t :  quoted  from  the  LXX  of 
Is.  X.  as,  but  considerably  shortened.  The  LXX  differs  considerably 
from  the  Hebrew,  which  the  translators  clearly  did  not  understand. 
But  the  variations  in  the  form  do  not  afifect  the  meaning  in  any 
case.  St.  Paul  reproduces  accurately  the  idea  of  the  original 
passage.  The  context  shows  that  the  words  must  be  translated 
'  only  a  remnant  shall  be  saved,'  and  that  it  is  the  cutting  off  of 
Israel  by  the  righteous  judgement  oi  God  that  is  foretold.  Prof. 
Cheyne  in  1884  translated  the  Hebrew :  '  For  though  thy  people, 
O  Israel,  were  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  only  a  remnant  of  them  shall 
return :  a  final  work  and  a  decisive,  overflowing  with  righteousness  I 
For  a  final  work  and  a  decisive  doth  the  Lord,  Jehovah  Sabaoth, 
execute  within  all  the  land.' 

28.  XAyer  y&p  ovrrtK&v  aol  (rvrri^vw  voii^i  Krfpios  litl  ti)s  yi\9  I 
vwTtX&v,  *  accomplishing,'  wwt(  fivw^  'abridging.'     Cf.  Is.  xxviii.  as 

dt^i    tnmrenktVfjJva    ica)    trvvTiTfU}fiMva    npdyfiara    iJKOvtra    napa    Kvptow 

2affao)6f  A  vo^trtt  twl  na<rca>  njy  y^v.  '  For  a  word,  accomplishing 
and  abridging  it,  that  is,  a  sentence  conclusive  and  concise,  wiU 
the  Lord  do  upon  the  earth.' 

Three  critical  points  are  of  some  interest  t 

(i)  The  TatlationB  in  the  MSS.  of  the  Gr.  Test  For  IniXtifiiia  (iirSXifiim 
WH.)  of  the  older  MSS.  (KAB,£a8.),  later  authorities  read  KardXtiiifia 
to  agree  with  the  LXX.  In  ver.  aS  \6yoy  yip  awreXSiy  icdi  avrriftveav 
voi^crci  Kvput  M  T^s  yijs  is  the  reading  of  K  A  B  a  few  minasc,  Pesh.  Boh. 
Aeth.,  Ens.  a/3;  Western  and  Syrian  anthorities  add  after  amninvojv,  iv 
ikKatoavvy  trt  \6yov  ffvvrfTftrififyov  to  suit  the  LXX.  Alford  defends  the 
TR.  on  the  plea  of  homoeoteleuton  {awTiftva/r  and  gvvmixrinivov),  but  the 
insertion  of  y&p  after  \6iyov  which  is  preserved  in  the  TR.  (where  it  is 
tmgrammatlcal)  and  does  not  occur  in  the  text  of  the  LXX,  shows  that  the 
shortened  form  was  what  St.  Paul  wrote. 

(a)  The  variations  from  the  LXX.  The  LXX  reads  koX  kd»  yevrirai 
i  \ads  'lapa^K  dn  ^  dfifios  r^f  OaX&aaris,  ri  Kar&Ktinita  airaiv  o»i$r]<reTai. 
k6yov  ffwTtXSry  teat  avvrifwoiv  iv  Sucaiooivjf  ort  K6yov  awTtr/iJjftirov  KiSptof 
9oit(fftt  iv  rp  olitovfih'Tf  o\ji.  St.  Paal  snbstitntes  dpiO/iit  tuv  vlStv  IffpariXf 
a  reminiscence  from  Hosea  L  10,  the  words  immediately  preceding  those 
quoted  by  him  above.  The  later  part  oi  the  quotation  he  considerably 
uiortens. 

(3)  The  variations  of  the  LXX  from  the  Hebrew.  These  appear  to  arise 
from  an  inability  to  translate.  For  '  a  final  work  and  a  decisive,  overflowing 
with  righteousness,'  they  wrote '  a  word,  accomplishing  and  abridgiitg  it  to 
righteousness,'  and  for '  a  final  woric  and  a  decisive^'  '  a  word  abridged  will 
the  Lord  do,'  8cc 

28.  vpoeipijKcr :  '  has  foretold.'    A  second  passage  it  quoted  in 
corroboration  of  the  preceding. 
«l  |fc^  KifMt  m.tXt  quoted  from  the  LXX  of  Is.  L  9,  which 


966  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  19-28. 

again  seems  adequately  to  represent  the  Hebrew.  '  Even  in  the 
O.  T.,  that  book  from  which  you  draw  your  hopes,  it  is  stated  that 
Israel  would  be  completely  annihilated  and  forgotten  but  foi 
t  small  remnant  which  would  preserve  their  seed  and  name.' 


TAf  Power  and  Rights  of  God  as  Creator. 

St.  Paul  in  this  section  (w.  19-29)  expands  and  strengthens 
the  previous  argument.  He  had  proved  in  vv.  14-18  the  absolute 
character  of  the  Divine  sovereignty  from  the  O.  T. ;  he  now 
proves  the  same  from  the  fundamental  relations  of  God  to  man 
implied  in  that  fact  which  all  his  antagonists  must  admit — that 
God  had  created  man.  This  he  applies  in  an  image  which  was 
common  in  the  O.  T.  and  the  Apocryphal  writings,  that  of  the 
potter  and  the  clay.  God  has  created  man,  and,  as  far  as  the 
question  of  'right'  and  *  justice '  goes,  man  cannot  complain  of 
his  lot.  He  would  not  exist  but  for  the  will  of  God,  and  whether 
his  lot  be  honourable  or  dishonourable,  whether  he  be  destined  for 
eternal  glory  or  eternal  destruction,  he  has  no  ground  for  speak- 
ing of  injustice.  The  application  to  the  case  in  point  is  very 
clear.  If  the  Jews  are  to  be  deprived  of  the  Messianic  salvation, 
they  have,  looking  at  the  question  on  purely  abstract  grounds, 
no  right  or  ground  of  complaint.  Whether  or  no  God  be 
arbitrary  in  His  dealings  with  them  does  not  matter :  they  must 
submit,  and  that  without  murmuring. 

This  is  clearly  the  argument.  We  cannot  on  the  one  hand 
minimize  the  force  of  the  words  by  Umiting  them  to  a  purely 
earthly  destination  :  as  Beyschlag,  '  out  of  the  material  of  the 
human  race  which  is  at  His  disposal  as  it  continues  to  come  into 
existence  to  stamp  individuals  with  this  or  that  historical  destina- 
tion,' implying  that  St.  Paul  is  making  no  reference  either  to  the 
original  creation  of  man  or  to  his  final  destination,  in  both  points 
erroneously.  St.  Paul's  argument  cannot  be  thus  limited.  It  is 
entirely  based  on  the  assumption  that  God  has  created  man,  and 
the  use  of  the  words  ««  bo^av,  tit  anmkfuw  prove  conclusively  that 
he  is  looking  as  much  as  he  ever  does  to  the  final  end  and 
destination  of  man.  To  hmit  them  thus  entirely  deprives  the 
passage  of  any  adequate  meaning. 

But  on  the  other  side  it  is  equally  necessary  to  see  exactly  how 
much  St.  Paul  does  say,  and  how  much  he  does  not.  He  never 
says,  he  carefully  avoids  saying,  that  God  has  created  men  foi 
reprobation.  What  his  argument  would  bear  is  that,  supposing 
we  isolate  this  point,  the  '  rights '  of  man  against  God  or  of  God 
against  man,  then,  even  if  God  had  created  man  for  reprobation, 
man  could  have  no  grounds  for  complaint. 


IX.  18-29.]         THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  96; 

We  must  in  fact  remember — and  it  is  quite  impossible  to  under- 
stand St.  Paul  if  we  do  not — that  the  three  chapters  ix-xi  form 
one  very  closely  reasoned  whole.  Here  more  than  anywhere  else 
in  his  writings,  more  clearly  even  than  in  i.  i6 — iii.  36,  does  St,  Paul 
show  signs  of  a  definite  method.  He  raises  each  point  separately, 
argues  it  and  then  sets  it  aside.  He  deliberately  isolates  for  a  time 
the  aspect  under  discussion.  So  Mr.  Gore  {op.  cit.  p.  37)  :  *  Hia 
method  may  be  called  abstract  or  ideal :  that  is  to  say,  he  makes 
abstraction  of  the  particular  aspect  of  a  subject  with  which  he  is 
immediately  dealing,  and — apparently  indifferent  to  being  misun- 
derstood— treats  it  in  isolation ;  giving,  perhaps,  another  aspect  of 
the  same  subject  in  equal  abstraction  in  a  different  place.'  He 
isolates  one  side  of  his  argument  in  one  place,  one  in  another, 
and  just  for  that  very  reason  we  must  never  use  isolated  texts. 
We  must  not  make  deductions  from  one  passage  in  his  writings 
separated  from  its  contexts  and  without  modifying  it  by  other 
passages  presenting  other  aspects  of  the  same  questions.  The 
doctrinal  deductions  must  be  made  at  the  end  of  chap,  xi  and  not 
of  chap.  ix. 

St.  Paul  is  gradually  working  out  a  sustained  argument.  He 
has  laid  down  the  principle  that  God  may  choose  and  reject  whom 
He  wills,  that  He  may  make  men  for  one  purpose  or  another  just 
as  He  wills,  and  if  He  will  in  quite  an  arbitrary  manner.  But  it  is 
already  pointed  out  that  this  is  not  His  method.  He  has  shown 
long-suffering  and  forbearance.  Some  there  were  whom  He  had 
created,  that  had  become  fitted  for  destruction — as  will  be  shown 
eventually,  by  their  own  act.  These  He  has  borne  with — both 
for  their  own  sakes,  to  give  them  room  for  repentance,  and  be- 
cause they  have  been  the  means  of  exhibiting  His  mercy  on  those 
whom  He  has  prepared  for  His  glory.  The  Apostle  lays  down 
the  lines  of  the  argument  he  will  follow  in  chap.  xi. 

The  section  concludes  with  a  number  of  quotations  from  the 
O.  T.,  introduced  somewhat  irregularly  so  far  as  method  and 
arrangement  go,  to  recall  the  fact  that  this  Divine  plan,  which  we 
shall  find  eventually  worked  out  more  fully,  had  been  foretold  by 
the  O.  T.  Prophets. 

(The  argument  of  Rom.  ix-xi  is  put  for  English  readers  in  the 
most  accessible  and  clearest  form  by  Mr.  Gore  in  the  paper  often 
quoted  above  in  Studia  Biblica,  iiL  37, '  The  argument  of  Romani 
ix-xi.') 

Tht  Relation  of  St.  Paul's  Argument  in  chap,  ix 
to  the  Book  of  Wisdom. 

In  a  note  at  the  end  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Romans  the  very  marked 
memblance  that  exists   between   St   Paol's  language  there  and  certaii 


a68  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  18-29. 

pasMges  In  the  Book  of  Wisdom  has  been  pointed  out.  Again  in  the  ninth 
chapter  the  same  resemblance  meets  os,  and  demands  some  slight  treatment 
in  this  place.     The  passages  referred  to  occur  mostly  in  Wisdom  xi,  xii. 

There  is  first  of  all  similarity  of  subject.  Wisdom  x-xix  form  like 
Rom.  ix-xi  a  sort  of  Philosophy  of  History.  The  writer  devotes  himself  to 
exhibiting  Wisdom  as  a  power  in  the  world,  and  throughout  (influenced 
perhaps  by  associations  connected  with  the  place  of  his  residence^  contrasts 
the  fortunes  of  the  Israelites  and  £g>'ptians,  just  as  St  Paul  makea  Mosea 
and  Pharaoh  his  two  typical  instances. 

And  this  resemblance  is  continued  in  details. 

The  impossibility  of  resisting  the  Divine  power  ii  more  than  once  dwelt 
en,  and  in  language  which  has  a  very  close  resemblance  with  passages  in  the 
Romans. 

Rom.  ix.  19,  aoiptft/iot  oJk,  Ti?T«  Wisd.  xi.  ai   «ai  ttpirfi  fipaxlovii 

^i(*<ptTeu;  Ty  fdp  ^ovK'/jfiari  avrov       tov  t/s  ivTtarrjfftrai; 
rit  drOiartfitt ;    .  .  .  /i^   ipti  ri  xii.  12  ris  yap ipfi,  Ii  ivoftjo'at;  4 

wXiff/M  T#  wXdaovTi,  Ti  >i«  i»of-  rls  AvriarrjafTai  r^  Kpip-aTi  aovi 
f  crat  otrottf  v»y  5J  k-i/KaXiatt.  aoi  Kard,  iOvStv  aitoKtt- 

Xoroiv,  A  a\i  iiroiTjaai ;  ^  rii  fit  /card' 
eraalv  aoi  IXtiatjai  tKOutot  hutoL  d5»- 
Mtfv  dvOpijiroir ; 

Both  writers  again  lay  great  stress  on  the  forbearance  of  God. 

Rom.  ix.   33,    33    tl  8J  OiXvv  6  Wisd.  xii.  10  Kfuvejv  5J  narii  Ppayi 

9(ds     ivtti^aaOai     rrjv     dpyriy     Koi        iSi^ovt  r6irov  ftfravoiai. 
yrcjp'taai  rd  Swarov  avrov  TJvcfKfv  xii.  ao  tl  yoLp  ix^pohs  waiSan'  ffov  Koi 

iy  iroAA^  fiaKpoOvfiiq  CKevr)  opyijt  6<p(i\o p.(vovt  Oavdr(^  fifrd  roaaV' 
marripTiffniva  tls  diTw\(tav,  njf  irinuprjaas  npoaoxv^  *"•  Sf^creaw, 
Koi  tva  yvoipiajj  rbv  itXovTOV  rxfi  56(^t  toiis  x/wkoot  ital  rdirov  &  w  dimA.- 
•£tov  iml  VKtvt)  ixiovs  «.tA-  Xaywai   T^t  leaKiat,  fitroi  voarjt  aicpi' 

Pdas  iitptvas  roiis  vtovt  crov  ; 

So  again  we  have  the  image  of  the  potter  used  by  both,  although  neither 
the  context  nor  the  purpose  is  quite  similar. 

Rom.  ix.  ai  ^  ovk  ixti  i^ovaiav  Wisd.  xv.  7  >m\  yAp  ««/>a/Kcit  d«a- 

i  KtpafAtiit  rod  rrrjKov,  ix  tow  kifv  f^v  OKifiajv  iwifioxOov  vXiofftt  vpdt 
mirov  tpvpdnarot  woirjaai  t  (*if  tU  virqp«jiav  ^fiuv  (Kaarov  a\X'  km  rov 
nftif  aK*vo$f  t  9)  ttt  drt/Mor;  airov  917X0 v  drcirXdo'aro  ri  rt  rwr 

madapwv  ipyeur  SovXa  aKtvrj,  r&  rt 
kvavria,  Maa>9'  ifioiws'  tovtov  8J  kripov 
rii  IxaaTOV  iarlr  ^  XFh"^*  tpiTi^t  i 
wriKovpy6t. 

The  particular  resemblajice  of  apecial  passages  and  of  the  general  drift  of 
the  argument  combined  with  similar  evidence  from  other  parts  of  the  Epistle 
■eems  to  suggest  some  definite  literary  obligation.  But  here  the  indebted- 
ness ceases.  The  contrast  is  equally  instructive.  The  writer  of  the  Book  of 
Wisdom  uses  broad  principles  without  understanding  their  meaning,  is  often 
•elf-contradictory,  and  combines  with  ideas  drawn  from  his  Hellenic  culture 
crude  and  inconsistent  views.  The  problem  is  the  distinction  between  the 
positions  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  the  Divine  economy.  Occasionally  we 
find  wide  universalist  sentiments,  but  he  always  cc-mes  back  to  a  strong 
nationalism.  At  one  time  he  says  (xi.  33-36)  :  '  But  Thou  hast  mercy  upon 
•11 .  . .  Thou  lovest  all  the  things  that  are,  and  abhorrest  nothing  which 
Thon  hast  made  .  .  .  Thou  sparest  all :  for  they  are  Thine,  O  Lord,  Thou 
Lover  of  souls.'     But  shortly  after  we  read  (xii.  10)  :  '  Thou  gavest  them 

Elace  for  repentance,  not  being  ignorant  that  their  cogitation  would  never 
e  changed.      We  soon  find  in  fact  that  the  philosophy  of  the  Book  of 
Wiidom  is  strictly  limited  by  the  nationalist  aympathies  <i  the  writer.    Tkf 


S:   6-29.]  THE   UNBELIEF   OF   ISRAEL  269 

Gentiles  are  to  be  punished  by  God  for  being  enemies  of  His  people  and  for 
their  idolatry.  Any  forbearanc:;  has  been  only  for  a  time  and  that  largely 
for  the  moral  instruction  thus  indirectly  to  be  given  to  the  Jews.  The  Jews 
have  been  punished, — but  only  slightly,  and  with  the  purpose  of  teaching 
them  ;  the  Gentiles  for  their  idolatry  deserve  'extreme  damnation.' 

If  St.  Paul  learnt  from  the  Book  of  Wisdom  some  expressions  illustrating 
the  Divine  power,  and  ageneral  aspect  of  the  question:  he  obtained  nothing 
further.  Hisbroad  views  and  deep  insight  are  his  own.  And  it  is  interest- 
ing to  contrast  a  Jew  wlio  has  learnt  many  maxims  which  conflict  with  his 
nationalism  but  yet  retains  all  his  narrow  sympathies,  with  the  Christian 
Apostle  full  of  broad  sympathy  and  deep  insight,  who  sees  in  human  af- 
fairs a  purpose  of  God  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  world  being  worked  out, 

A  History  of  the  Interpi'etation  of  Rom.  ix.  6-29. 

The  difficulties  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Romans  are  so  great  that  few 
will  ever  be  satisfied  that  they  have  really  understood  it :  at  any  rate  an 
acquaintance  with  the  history  of  exegesis  upon  it  will  make  us  hesitate  to  be 
too  dogmatic  about  our  own  conclusions  A  survey  of  some  of  the  more 
typical  lines  of  comment  (nothing  more  can  be  attempted)  will  be  a  fitting 
supplement  to  the  general  discussion  given  above  on  its  meaning. 

The  earliest  theologians  who  attempted  to  construct  a  system  out  of  Gnostic 
St.  Paul's  writings  were  the  Gnostics.  They  found  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, or  to  speak  more  correctly  certain  texts  and  ideas  selected  from  the 
Epistle  (such  as  Rom.  v.  14  and  viii.  19 ;  cf .  Hip.  Ref.  vii.  25)  and  generally 
misinterpreted,  very  congenial.  And,  as  might  naturally  be  expected,  the 
doctrine  of  election  rigidly  interpreted  harmonized  with  their  own  exclusive 
religious  pretensions,  and  with  the  key-word  of  their  system  <pv(Tis.  We  are 
not  surprised  therefore  to  learn  that  Rom.  ix. ,  especially  ver.  14  sq. ,  was  one 
of  their  strongholds,  nor  do  we  require  to  be  told  how  they  interpreted  it 
(see  Origen  De  Princ.  III.  li.  8,  vol.  xxi.  p.  267,  ed.  \.oraxa.=zPhiloc.  xxi. 
vol.  XXV.  p.  170;  Com)n.  ut  Rom.  Praef.  vol.vi.  p.  I ;  and  Tert.  Adv. 
Marcion.  ii.  14). 

The  interest  of  the  Gnostic  system  of  interpretation  is  that  it  determined  Origeo 
the  direction  and  purpose  of  Origen.  who  discusses  the  passage  not  only  in 
his  Commentary,  written  after  244  (vii.  15-18,  vol.  vii.  pp.  160-180),  but 
also  in  the  third  book  of  the  De  Priucipiis,  written  before  231  {De  Prin. 
III.  ii.  7-22,  vol.  xxi.  pp.  265-303  =:/'/«7t'r.  xxi.  vol.  xxv.  pp.  164-190),  be- 
sides some  few  other  passages.  His  exegesis  is  throughout  a  strenuous 
defence  of  freewill.  Exegetically  the  most  marked  feature  is  that  he  puts 
vv.  14-19  into  the  mouth  of  an  opponent  of  St.  Paul,  an  interpretation 
which  influenced  subsequent  patristic  commentators.  Throughout  he 
states  that  God  calls  men  because  they  are  worthy,  not  that  they  are 
worthy  because  they  are  called ;  and  that  they  are  worthy  because  they 
have  made  themselves  so.  Cf.  ad  Rom.  vii.  17  (Lomm.  vii.  175)  Ul 
enim  Jacob  esset  vas  ad  honoretn  sanctificatiim,  et  tittle  Domino,  ad 
omne  opus  bonum  paratum,  ANIMA  Eius  EMENDAVERAT  semet  ipsam  : 
et  videns  Deus  puritatem  eius,  et  potestatem  habens  ex  eadem  ?nassa 
facere  aliud  vas  ad  honorem,  aliud  ad  coniumeliam,  Jacob  quidem,  qui 
ut  diximus   emuiidaverat    semet   ipsum,  fecit    vas   ad  honorem,   Esau 

VERO,     CUIUS    ANIMAM    NGN     ITA    PURAM     NEC    ITA    SIMPLICEM    VIDIT, 

ex  eadem  massa  fecit  vas  ad  contumeliam.  To  the  question  that  may  be 
asked,  how  or  when  did  they  make  themselves  such,  the  answer  is,  '  In 
a  state  of  pre-existence.'  De  Princ.  II.  ix,  7,  Lomm.  xxi.  225  igitur  sicut 
de  Esau  et  Jacob  diligcntius  perscrutatis  scripturis  invenitur,  quia  non  est 
iniustitia  apud Deum ...  si  EX  praecedentis  videlicet  vitae  meritis 
disrne  eum  electum  esse  sentiamus  a  Deo.  ita  ut  fratri  t)raet>oni  mereretur 


S70  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  6-20. 

See  also  III.  L  ai.  Lomm.  xxL  300.  The  hardening  of  Pharaoh's  heart  ht 
explains  by  the  simile  of  rain.  The  rain  is  the  same  for  all,  bnt  under  its 
Influence  well-cultiTated  fields  lend  forth  good  crops,  ill-cultivated  fields 
thistles,  &c.  (cf.  Heb.  vi.  7,  8).  So  it  is  a  man's  own  sonl  which  hardens 
itself  by  refusing  to  yield  to  the  Divine  grace.  The  simile  of  the  potter  he 
explains  by  comparing  3  Tim.  ii.  so,  ai.  'A  soul  which  has  not  cleansed 
Itself  nor  purged  itself  of  its  sins  by  penitence,  becomes  thereby  a  vessel  for 
dishonour.  And  God  knowing  the  character  of  the  souls  He  has  to  deal 
with,  although  He  does  not  foreknow  their  future,  makes  use  of  them — as 
for  example  Pharaoh — to  fulfil  that  part  in  history  which  is  necessary  for 
His  purpose. 

Origen's  interpretation  of  this  passage,  with  the  exception  of  his  doctrine 
of  pre-existence,  had  a  very  wide  influence  both  in  the  East  and  West  In 
the  West  his  interpretation  is  followed  in  the  main  by  Jerome  {Epist.  lao 
ad  Hedibiam  dt  quatstionibus  la,  cap.  10,  Migne  xxii.  997),  by  Pelagiof 
(Migne  xxx.  687-691),  and  Sedulius  Scotus  (^Migne  ciii.  83-93).  ^  t^'  'S.as.i, 
after  its  influence  had  prevailed  for  a  century  and  a  half,  it  became  the 
starting  point  of  the  Antiochene  exegesis.  Of  this  school  Diodore  is  un- 
fortunately represented  to  us  only  in  isolated  fragments ;  Theodore  is  strongly 
influenced  by  Origen;  Chrysostom  therefore  may  be  taken  as  its  best  and  most 
distinguished  representative.  His  comment  is  contained  in  the  XVIth  homily 
on  the  Romans,  written  probably  before  his  departure  from  Antioch,  that  ii 
before  the  year  398. 

Chrysostom  is  like  Origen  a  strong  defender  of  Freewill.  A»  might  be 
expected  in  a  member  of  the  Antiochene  school,  he  interprets  the  passage  io 
accordance  with  the  purpose  of  St.  Paul,  i.e.  to  explain  how  it  was  the  Jews 
had  been  rejected.  He  refers  ver.  9  to  those  who  have  become  true  sons  of 
God  by  Baptism.  '  You  see  then  that  it  is  not  the  children  of  the  flesh  that 
are  the  children  of  God,  bnt  that  even  in  nature  itself  the  generation  by 
means  of  Baptism  from  above  was  sketched  out  beforehand.  And  if  you 
tell  me  of  the  womb,  I  have  in  return  to  tell  you  of  the  water.'  On  ver.  16 
he  explains  that  Jacob  was  called  because  he  was  worthy,  and  was  known  to 
be  such  by  the  Divine  foreknowledge :  fi  tear'  iK\oyT)v  irp69fats  tov  Btov  is 
explained  as  ff  kK\oyfi  ^  Kard,  npSdeaiv  Kal  npSyvuatv  yevofievr,.  On  vr.  14-ao 
Chrysostom  does  not  follow  Origen,  nor  yet  does  he  interpret  the  verses  as  ex- 
pressing St.  Paul's  own  mind  ;  but  he  represents  him  in  answer  to  the  objection 
that  in  this  case  God  would  be  unjust,  as  putting  a  number  of  hard  cases  and 
texts  which  his  antagonist  cannot  answer  and  thus  proving  that  man  has  no  right 
to  object  to  God's  action,  or  accuse  Him  of  injustice,  since  he  cannot  understand 
or  follow  Him.  '  What  the  blessed  Paul  aimed  at  was  to  show  by  all  that 
he  said  that  only  God  knoweth  who  are  worthy.'  Verses  ao,  ai  are  not 
introduced  to  take  away  Freewill,  but  to  show  up  to  what  point  we  ought 
to  obey  God.  For  if  he  were  here  speaking  of  the  will,  God  would  be 
Himself  the  creator  of  good  or  evil,  and  men  would  be  free  from  all 
responsibility  in  these  matters,  and  St.  Paul  would  be  inconsistent  with 
himself  What  he  does  teach  is  that  '  man  should  not  contravene  God,  but 
yield  to  His  incomprehensible  wisdom.'  On  w.  32-24  he  says  that  Pharaoh 
has  been  fitted  for  destruction  by  his  own  act ;  that  God  has  left  undone 
nothing  which  should  save  him,  while  he  himself  had  left  undone  nothing 
which  would  lead  to  his  own  destruction.  Yet  God  had  borne  with  him  with 
great  long-suffering,  wishing  to  lead  him  to  repentance.  *  Whence  comes 
it  then  that  some  are  vessels  of  wrath,  and  some  of  mercy  ?  Of  their  own 
free  choice.   God  however  being  very  good  shows  the  same  kindness  to  both.' 

The  commentaries  of  Chrysostom  became  supreme  in  the  East,  and  very 
largely  influenced  all  later  Greek  commentators,  Theodoret  (sec.  v),  Photin» 
(sec.  ix),  Oecumenias  (kc  z),  TheophyUct  (sec  xi),  Eathymiua  Zigabcnu 
(tec.  xii),  dec. 


IZ.  e-20.]  THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  271 

The  tradition  of  the  Greek  commentators  is  preserved  in  the  Russian  Church.  Rnss 
Idodem  Sclavonic  theology  presents  an  interesting  snbject  for  study,  as  it  is  comr 
derired  directly  from  Chrysostom  and  John  of  Damascus,  and  has  hardly  aries. 
been  Uluminated  or  obscured  by  the  strong,  although  often  one-sided,  influ- 
ence of  Augustine  and  Western  Scolasticism.  In  the  Commentary  of  Bishop 
Theophanes*  on  the  Romans  (he  died  in  1894)  published  at  Moscow  in 
1890,  we  find  these  characteristics  very  clearly.  Just  as  in  Chrysostom  we 
find  the  passage  interpreted  in  accordance  not  with  d  friori  theories  as  to 
Grace  and  Predestination,  but  with  what  was  clearly  St.  Paul's  purpose,  the 
problem  of  the  '  Unbelief  of  the  Jews  in  the  presence  of  Christianity.'  And 
also  as  in  Chrysostom  we  find  w.  11,  i  a  explained  on  the  grounds  of  Fore- 
knowledge, and  Pharaoh's  destruction  ascribed  to  his  own  act.  On  ver.  18 : 
'  The  word  "  he  hardeneth  "  must  not  be  understood  to  mean  that  God  by  His 
power  effected  a  hardening  in  the  heart  of  the  disobedient  like  Pharaoh,  but 
that  the  disobedient  in  character,  under  the  working  of  God's  mercies,  them- 
selves, according  to  their  evil  character  do  not  soften  themselves,  but  more  and 
more  harden  themselves  in  their  obstinacy  and  disobedience.'  So  again 
on  TV.  aa,  aj :  '  God  prepared  the  one  to  be  vessels  of  mercy,  the  others 
fashioned  themselves  into  vessels  of  wrath.'  And  the  commentary  on  these 
verses  concludes  thus :  '  Do  not  be  troubled  and  do  not  admit  of  the  thought 
that  there  is  any  injustice,  or  that  the  promise  has  failed ;  but  on  the  contrary 
believe,  that  God  in  all  his  works  is  good  and  right,  and  rest  yourselves  in 
devotion  to  His  wise  and  for  us  unsearchable  destinations  and  divisions.' 
There  is,  in  fact,  a  clear  conception  of  the  drift  and  purpose  of  St.  Paul's 
argument,  but  a  fear  of  one-sided  predestination  teaching  makes  a  complete 
grasp  of  the  whole  of  the  Apostle's  meaning  impossible. 

The  commentary  generally  quoted  under  the  name  of  Ambrosiaster  has  an  Aagi 
interest  as  containing  probably  the  earliest  correct  exposition  of  w.  14-19. 
But  it  is  more  convenient  to  pass  at  once  to  St.  Augustine.     His  exposition 
of  this  passage  was  to  all  appearance  quite  independent  of  that  of  any  of  his 
I^edecessors. 

The  most  complete  exposition  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  Romans  is  found  in 
^^\3xa.\Ssit  Ad Simplicianum,  i.  qu.  a,  written  about  the  year  397,  and  all  the 
leading  points  in  this  exposition  are  repeated  in  his  last  work,  the  Opu$ 
imperfectum  contra  lulianum,  i.  141.  The  main  characteristics  of  the 
oommentary  are  that  (i)  he  ascribes  w.  14-19  to  St.  Paul  himself, and  considers 
that  they  represent  his  own  opinions,  thus  correcting  the  false  exegesis  of  Origen 
and  Chrysostom,  and  (a)  that  he  takes  a  view  of  the  passage  exactly  opposite 
to  that  of  the  latter.  The  purpose  of  St.  Paul  is  to  prove  that  works  do 
not  precede  grace  but  follow  it,  and  that  Election  is  not  based  on  foreknowledge, 
for  if  it  were  based  on  foreknowledge  then  it  would  imply  merit.  Ad  Simplic. 
L  qu.  a,  §  2  Ut  scilicet  non  st  quisque  arbitrctur  idea  perctpisse  gratiam,  quia 
bene  opercUus  est ;  sed  bene  operari  non  posse,  nisi  per  Jidem  perceperit 
gratiam  ...  §  3  Prima  est  igitur  gratia,  secunda  opera  bona.  The  instance 
of  Jacob  and  Esau  proves  that  the  gift  of  the  Divine  grace  is  quite  gratuitous 
and  independent  of  human  merit — that  grace  in  fact  precedes  faith.  §  7  Nemo 
tnim  credit  qui  non  voccUur  .  .  .  Ergo  ante  omne  meritum  est  gratia.  Even 
the  will  to  be  saved  must  come  from  God.  Nisi  eius  vocatione  non  volumus. 
And  again :  §  10  Noluit  ergo  Esau  et  non  cucurrit :  sedet  si  voluisset  et  cucur- 
risset,  Dei  ddiutorio  pervenisset,  qui  ei  etiam  veils  et  currert  vocando  prae- 
ttaret,  nisi  vocationis  contemptu  reprobus  fieret.  It  is  then  shown  that  God 
can  call  whom  He  will,  if  He  only  wills  to  make  His  grace  congruous.  Why 
then  does  He  not  do  so  ?  The  answer  lies  in  the  incomprehensibility  of  the 
Divine  justice.     The  question  whom  He  will  pity  and  whom  He  will  not 

*  For  a  translation  of  portions  of  this  Conunentaiy,  we  are  indebted  to  the 
kindness  of  Mr  W.  J.  Birkbeck,  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford. 


17*  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX.  6-28. 

depends  npon  the  hidden  justice  of  God  which  no  hnman  standard  can  naeasnre 
f  l6 .5"iV  igitur  hocfixum  atqut  immobiU  in  mente  sobria  pietate  atqut  stabili 
in  fide,  quod  nulla  est  iniquitas  afud  Deum :  atqut  ita  tenacissime  firmissi- 
wuque  credatur,  id  ipsum  quod  Deus  cuius  vult  miseretur  et  quern  vult  obdurat, 
hoc  tst,  cuius  vult  miseretur,  et  cuius  nan  vult  non  mistrttur,  ess*  alicuiui 
tccultae  atque  ab  humane  modulo  investigabilis  aequitatis:  and  so  again,  euqui- 
tatt  tccultissima  et  ab  humanis  sensibus  remotissima  iudicat.  God  is  always 
JBst.  His  naercy  cannot  be  understood.  Those  whom  He  calls,  He  calls  out  of 
pity;  those  whom  He  does  not,  He  refuses  to  call  out  of  justice.  It  is  not  merit 
or  necessity  or  fortune,  but  the  depths  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God 
which  distinguishes  vessels  of  wrath  from  vessels  of  mercy.  And  so  it  is  for 
the  sake  of  the  vessels  of  mercy  that  He  postpones  the  punishment  of  the 
▼essels  of  anger.  They  are  the  instruments  of  the  safety  of  others  whom 
God  pities. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  lines  of  St.  Augustine's  interpretation. 
Although  from  time  to  time  there  might  be  controversies  about  his  views  on 
Grace,  and  there  might  be  a  tendency  to  modify  some  of  the  harder  sides  of 
his  system,  yet  his  exegesis  of  this  passage,  as  compared  with  that  of  Origen 
or  Chrysostom,  became  supreme  in  the  West.  It  influenced  first  the  exegesis 
and  doctrine  of  the  Schoolmen,  and  then  that  of  the  Reformation  and  of  Calvin. 
For  the  middle  ages  it  may  be  sufficient  to  take  Abelard  (1079-1143)  and 
Thomas  Aquinas  (i  227-1374).  Both  were  largely  influenced  by  Augustine; 
but  whereas  in  the  case  of  Abelard  the  influence  was  only  indirect,  in 
Aquinas  we  have  the  clearest  and  most  perfect  example  of  the  Angostinian 
exposition. 

ibelard.  Abelard  (Migne  clxxviiL  911)  makes  a  somewhat  strange  division  of  the 

Epistle,  attaching  the  exposition  of  ix.  1-5  to  the  end  of  chap.  viiL  Ha 
begins  his  fourth  book  with  ix.  6.  In  w.  6-13  he  sees  a  vindication  of  the 
freedom  of  the  Divine  will  in  conferring  grace,  but  only  in  relation  to  Jacob. 
•That  the  election  of  Jacob,'  he  says,  '  that  is  the  predestination,  may  remain 
nnmoved.'  The  choice  depends  solely  on  the  Divine  grace.  Verses  14-19  he 
explains  as  the  objection  of  an  opponent,  to  which  St.  Paul  gives  an  answer, 
▼er.  20,  *  Who  art  thou?'  The  answer  is  a  rebuke  to  the  man  who  would 
accuse  God  of  iniquity.  God  may  do  what  He  will  with  those  whom  He  has 
created :  imo  multo  potius  Deo  litere  quocunque  modo  voluerit  crtaturam  tuam 
tractare  atque  disponere,  qui  obnoxius  nulla  tenetur  debito,  antequam  quid- 
quam  ilia  promereatur.  Men  have  no  more  right  to  complain  than  the 
animals  of  their  position.  There  is  no  injustice  with  God.  He  does  more 
for  mankind  by  the  impiety  of  Judas  than  by  the  piety  of  Peter.  Quit  tnim 
fideliutn  nesciat,  quam  optimt  usus  sit  summa  ilia  impietatt  Itidat,  cuius 
exsecrabili  perditione  totius  humani  generis  redemptionem  tst  operatus. 
Then  he  argues  at  some  length  the  question  why  man  should  not  complain, 
if  he  is  not  called  as  others  are  called  to  glory ;  and  somewhat  inconsistently 
he  finds  the  solution  in  perseverance.  God  calls  all,  He  gives  grace  to  all, 
but  some  have  the  energy  to  follow  the  calling,  while  others  are  slothful 
imd  negligent.  Sic  et  Deo  nobis  quotidit  regnum  coelorum  offerente,  alius 
regni  ipsius  desiderio  accensus  in  bonis  perseverat  operibus,  alius  in  sua 
torpescit  ignavia.  On  w.  22,  23  he  says  God  bore  with  the  wickedness  of 
Pharaoh  both  to  give  him  an  opportunity  to  repent,  and  that  He  might  use 
his  crimes  for  the  common  good  of  mankind. 

kQ«<»—  In  contrast  with  the  somewhat  hesitating  and  inconsistent  character  ol 

Abelard's  exposition,  Aquinas  stands  out  as  one  of  the  best  and  clearest  com- 
mentaries written  from  the  Augustiniau  standpoint.  The  modem  reader  must 
learn  to  accustom  himself  to  the  thoroughness  with  which  each  point  is 
discussed,  and  the  minuteness  of  the  sub-divisions,  but  from  few  exponents  will 
he  gain  so  much  insight  into  the  philosophical  questions  discossed,  or  tlM 
logical  difficulties  the  soiation  of  which  i*  attempted. 


[X.  6-29.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  37) 

The  purpose  of  the  section  is,  he  says,  to  discnss  the  origin  of  Grace,  to  do 

which  the  Apostle  makes  use  of  the  opportunity  afforded  by  the  difficulties 
implied  in  the  rejection  of  the  Jews.  Apostolus  supra  tucessitatem  et  vir- 
tutem  gratiaa  demonstravit :  hie  incipit  agert  d*  orient  gratiae,  utrum  ex  sola 
Dei  electione  detur,  aut  detur  tx  meritis  pra4cedentium  optrum,  occasion* 
mecepta  ex  to,  quod  ludaei  qui  videbantur  divinis  obsequiis  mancipati,  exci- 
dtrant  m  gratia.  In  w.  6-13  the  errors  of  the  Jews,  of  the  Manichaeans 
(who  believed  that  human  actions  were  controlled  by  the  stars  which  appeared 
at  the  time  of  their  birth),  of  the  Pelagians,  of  Origen  (the  pre- existence  of 
souls)  are  condemned,  and  it  is  shown  that  God  chose  men,  not  because  they 
were  holy,  but  that  they  might  be  holy :  unum  alteri  praeeligit,  non  quia 
sanetus  ercU,sed  ut  sanctus  tsset.  In  w.  14-18  St.  Paul  shows  from  Scripture 
that  there  is  no  injustice  either  in  Predestination  or  in  Reprobation.  God 
has  predestined  the  just  to  life  for  merits  which  He  has  Himself  conferred  on 
them,  the  wicked  to  destruction  for  sins  which  come  from  themselves.  Deus 
froposuit  se  punitwum  malos  propter  peccata,  quae  a  se  ipsis  habent  n«n 
a  Deo.  lustos  autem  proposuit  se  praemiaturum  propter  tnerita  quae  a  s« 
ipsis  non  habent.  All  lies  in  the  will  of  God ;  we  notice  indeed  that  among 
other  erroneous  opinions  one,  that  oi  merita  consequentia  gratiatn, — the  view 
apparently  of  Abelard — is  refuted.  There  is  no  injustice.  '  Distributive  justice 
has  a  place  in  cases  of  debt,  but  not  in  cases  of  pity.'  If  a  man  relieves 
one  beggar,  but  not  another,  he  is  not  unjust ;  he  is  kind  hearted  towards  one. 
Similarly  if  a  man  forgives  only  one  of  two  offenders,  he  is  not  unjust ;  he  is 
merciful  towards  one,  just  towards  the  other. 

In  the  instance  of  Pharaoh  two  readings  are  discussed,  servavi  and  extita/tn 
If  the  first  be  taken  it  shows  that,  as  the  wicked  are  worthy  of  immediate  de- 
struction, if  they  are  saved  it  is  owing  to  the  clemency  of  God  ;  if  the  second, 
God  does  not  cause  wickedness,  except  by  permitting  it ;  He  allows  the 
wicked  by  His  good  judgement  to  fall  into  sin  on  account  of  the  iniquity  they 
have  committed.  Quod  quidem  non  tst  intelligendum  hoc  modo  quod  Deus 
in  homine  causat  malitiam,  sed  tst  intelligendum  permissive,  quia  scilicet  in 
iusto  tuo  iudicio  permittit  aliquos  ruert  in  peccatum  propter  praecedentes 
iniquitates.  Dtus  malitiam  ordinal  non  causat.  In  w.  19-24  he  says 
there  are  two  questions,  (i)  Why,  speaking  generally,  should  He  choose  some 
men  and  not  choose  others?  (2)  Why  should  He  choose  this  or  that  man  and 
not  someone  else  ?  The  second  of  these  is  treated  in  w.  19-31 ;  to  it  there  is 
DO  answer  but  the  righteous  will  of  God.  No  man  can  complain  of  being 
anjustly  treated,  for  all  are  deserving  of  punishment.  The  answer  to  the  first 
is  contained  in  w.  32-34.  In  order  to  exhibit  both  His  justice  and  His 
mercy,  there  must  be  some  towards  whom  He  shows  His  justice,  some 
towards  whom  He  can  show  His  mercy.  The  former  are  those  who  are  naturally 
fitted  for  eternal  damnation  :  God  has  done  nothing  but  allow  them  to  do 
what  they  wish.  Vasa  apta  in  inttritum  he  defines  as  in  se  habentia  aptitu- 
dinem  ad  astemam  damnationem ;  and  adds  Hoc  autem  solus  Deus  circa  eos 
agit,  quod  eos  permittit  agere  quae  concupiscunt.  He  has  in  fact  borne  with 
them  both  for  their  own  sakes,  and  for  the  sake  of  those  whom  He  uses  to 
exhibit  the  abundance  of  His  goodness — a  goodness  which  could  not  be 
apparent  unless  it  could  be  contrasted  with  the  fate  of  the  condemned. 
Sigitanter  autem  dicit  [ut  ostenderet  divitias  gloriae  suae]  quia  ipsa  con- 
demnatio  tt  reprobatio  malorum  quae  est  secundum  Dei  iustitiam,  manifestai 
it  commendai  sanctorum  gloriam  qui  ah  ipsa  tali  miseria  liberantur. 

The  antithesis  which  was  represented  among  patristic  commentators  by 
Augustine  and  Chrysostom  was  exaggerated  at  the  Reformation  by  Calvin 
and  Arminius.  Each  saw  only  his  own  side.  Calvin  followed  Augustine, 
and  exaggerated  his  harshest  teaching  :  Arminius  showed  a  subtle  power  oi 
finding  Freewill  even  in  the  most  unlikely  places. 

The  object  of  St  Paolj  accotding  to  Calvin,  is  to  maintain  the  freedom  o^ 


474  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IX.  6-29. 

the  Divine  election.  Thii  is  absolately  gntnitoai  oa  God't  p«it,  and  qnitt 
iadcpendent  of  man.  In  the  salvation  of  the  just  there  if  nothing  above 
God  s  goodness,  in  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  there  it  nothing  above  Hii 
■everity :  the  one  He  predestinates  to  salvation,  the  other  to  eternal  damna- 
tion. This  determination  is  quite  independent  of  foreknowledge,  for  there 
can  be  nothmg  in  man's  fallen  natnre  which  can  make  God  show  kindness  to 
him.  The  predestination  of  Pharaoh  to  destruction  is  dependent  on  a  jast 
but  secret  counsel  of  God  :  the  word  '  to  harden '  must  be  taJcen  not  only  per' 
missive,  but  as  signifying  the  action  of  the  Divine  wrath.  The  ruin  of  the 
wicked  is  described  not  as  foreseen,  but  as  ordained  by  His  will  and  counsel. 
It  was  not  merely  foreknown,  but,  as  Solomon  says,  the  wicked  were  created 
that  they  might  perish.  There  is  no  means  of  telling  the  principle  by  which 
one  is  taken  and  another  rejected;  it  lies  in  the  secret  counsels  of  God. 
None  deserve  to  be  accepted.  The  wrath  of  God  against  Pharaoh  wa«  post- 
poned that  others  might  be  terrified  by  the  horrible  judgement,  that  God's 
power  might  be  displayed,  and  His  mercy  towards  the  elect  made  more  clear. 
As  God  is  especially  said  to  prepare  the  ve  els  of  glory  for  glory,  it  follows 
that  the  preparation  of  the  vessels  of  wrath  equally  comes  from  Him  ;  other- 
wise the  Apostle  would  have  said  that  they  had  prepared  themselves  for 
destruction.  Before  they  were  created  their  fate  wai  assigned  to  them.  They 
were  created  for  destruction. 

Arminius  represents  absolute  antagonism  oo  every  point  to  these  views. 
The  purpose  of  the  chapter  is,  he  says,  the  same  as  that  of  the  Epistle, 
looked  at  from  a  special  point  of  view.  While  the  aim  of  the  Epistle  is  to 
prove  '  Justification  by  Faith,'  in  this  chapter  St.  Paul  defends  his  argument 
against  Jews  who  had  urged :  '  It  overthrows  the  promises  of  God,  therefore 
it  is  not  true.'  By  the  words  addressed  to  Rebecca  He  signified  that  He  had 
from  eternity  resolved  not  to  admit  to  His  privileges  all  the  children  o( 
Abraham,  but  those  only  whom  He  should  select  in  accordance  with  the 

Elan  He  had  laid  down.  This  plan  was  to  extend  His  mercy  to  those  who 
ad  faith  in  Him  when  He  called  and  who  believed  on  Christ,  not  to  those 
who  sought  salvation  by  works.  The  passage  that  follows  (ver.  14  ff.) 
■hows  that  God  has  decided  to  give  His  mercy  in  His  own  way  and  on  His 
own  plan,  that  is  to  give  it  not  to  him  who  runs,  to  him  that  is  who  strives 
after  it  by  works,  but  to  him  who  seeks  it  in  the  way  that  He  has  appointed. 
And  this  ia  perfectly  just,  because  He  has  Himself  announced  this  as  His 
method.  Then  the  image  of  the  potter  and  the  clay  is  introduced  to  prove, 
not  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God,  but  His  right  to  do  what  He  will,  that 
ia  to  name  His  own  conditions.  He  has  created  man  to  become  something 
better  than  he  was  made.  God  has  made  man  a  vessel :  man  it  is  who 
makes  himself  a  bad  vesseL  God  decrees  on  certain  condition!  to  make 
men  vessels  of  glory  or  vessels  of  wrath  according  as  they  do  or  do  not  fulfil 
these  conditions.     The  condition  is  Justification  by  Faith. 

The  systems  of  Arminius  and  Calvin  were  for  the  most  part  supreme 
during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  in  the  exegesis  of  this  chapter, 
although  there  were  from  time  to  time  signs  of  historical  methods  of  inter- 
pretation. Hammond  for  example,  the  English  divine  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  in  his  paraphrase  adopts  methods  very  much  beyond  those  of  his 
time.  But  gradually  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  century  the  defects  or 
inadequacy  of  both  views  became  apparent.  It  was  quite  clear  that  a* 
•gainst  Arminius  Calvin's  interpretation  of  chap,  ix  was  correct,  that  St 
Paul's  object  in  it  was  not  to  prove  or  defend  justification  by  faith,  bnt  to 
discuss  the  question  behind  it,  why  it  was  that  some  had  obtained  justification 
by  faith  and  others  had  not.  But  equally  clear  was  it  that  Calvin's  inter- 
pretation, or  rather  much  of  what  he  had  read  into  his  interpretation,  wat 
inconsistent  with  chap,  x,  and  the  language  which  St.  Paul  habitually  uet 
elsewhere.     Thia  apparent  inconsistency  tlien  mnst  be  lecognizeO:     How 


IX.  SO— Z.  IS.]     THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  375 

ntut  it  be  treated  f  Varioas  answen  have  been  given.  Fritzsche  asserts  Frtti 
that  St  Pan!  is  carried  away  by  his  argnment  and  unconsciously  contradicts 
liimselt  '  It  is  evident  that  what  St.  Paui  writes  is  not  only  inconsistent  with 
Xself  bat  absolutely  contradictory.'  If  the  Jews,  it  is  asserted  in  chap,  ix, 
were  6Tst  chosen  and  then  rejected,  it  was  the  malignity  of  God  and  not  their 
own  perversity  which  caused  their  falL  If  God  had  decreed  their  fall  for 
«  time  (chap,  xi),  they  could  not  be  blamed  if  they  had  fallen ;  and  yet  in 
£liap.  z  they  are  blamed.  Multis  saept  accidit  ut  amicum  fortunae  fulmine 
ptrcussum  trtcturi  studio  tomolandi  argumentis  cupide  uUrentur  neqtu  ab 
tmni  parte  Jlrtnis  tt  quorum  unum  turn  alttro  parum  consisttret.  Et 
uulius  Hbi  Paulut  consnuUsti,  ti  Aristottlis  mom  GamalUlis  alumnus 
fuissot. 

Meyer  admits  the  discrepancy  but  explains  it  differently.  '  As  often  as  we  Meyi 
treat  only  one  of  the  two  truths,  God  is  absoluttly  free  and  alUsufficient,  and 
mam  has  moral  freedom  and  is  in  virtue  of  his  proper  self-determination  and 
rtsponsihility  a  liberum  agens,  tho  author  of  his  salvation  or  perdition,  and 
carry  it  out  in  a  consistent  theory  and  therefore  in  a  one-sided  method,  we 
arc  compelled  to  speak  in  such  a  manner  that  the  other  truth  appears  to  be 
annulled.'  .  .  .  '  The  Apostle  has  here  wholly  taken  his  position  on  the 
absolute  standpoint  of  the  theory  of  our  dependence  upon  God,  and  that 
with  all  the  boldness  of  clear  consistency.'  .  .  .  '  He  allows  the  claims  of 
both  modes  of  consideration  to  stand  side  by  side,  just  as  they  exist  side  by 
side  within  the  limits  of  human  thought.'  According  to  Meyer  in  fact  the 
two  points  of  view  are  irreconcileable  in  thought,  and  St  Paul  recognizing 
this  does  not  attempt  to  reconcile  them. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  enumerate  all  the  different  varieties  of  opinion 
in  the  views  of  modem  scholars.  One  more  specimen  will  be  sufficient. 
The  solution  offered  by  Beyschlag.  He  maintains  that  all  interpretations  are  Beyo 
wrong  which  consider  that  St.  Pafl  is  concerned  with  anything  either  before  or 
after  this  life.  It  is  no  eternal  decree  of  God,  nor  is  it  the  future  destiny  of 
mar.fund  that  he  is  dealing  with.  It  is  merely  their  position  in  history  and 
IB  the  world.  Why  has  he  chosen  one  race  (the  Jews)  for  one  purpose, 
•Bother  race  (the  Egyptians)  for  another  ?  He  is  dealing  with  nations  not 
iadiTidaals,  with  temporal  not  spiritual  privileges. 

The  above  sketch  will  present  the  main  lines  of  interpretation  of  these 
verses,  and  will  serve  as  a  supplement  to  the  explanation  which  has  been 
given  above.  We  must  express  our  obligations  in  compiling  it  to  Weber 
(Dr.  Valentin),  Kritisch*  Geschichtt  der  Exegese  des  9.  Kapitels  rtsp.  dtr 
Vorst  14-33  dts  Rbmerbriefes ,  bis  auf  Chrysostomus  und  Augustinus  «'»• 
tchiosslich,  and  to  Beyschlag  (Dr.  Willibald),  Di$  paulinische  TheodicMt 
ROmtr  JX-XI,  who  have  materially  lighteacd  the  labour  incoiied. 


ZBBAEZi  ITSEIiF  TO  BLAME  FOB  ITS  BEJECTIOIT. 

IX.  80-X.  18.  The  reason  that  God  has  rejected  Israel 
is  that,  though  they  sought  righteousness,  they  sought  it  in 
their  own  way  by  means  of  works,  not  in  God's  way  through 
faith.  Hence  when  the  Messiah  came  they  stumbled  as  had 
been  foretold  (w.  30-33).  They  refused  to  give  up  their 
own  method,  that  of  Law,  although  Law  had  come  to  an  end 
m  Chrut  (x  1-4),  and  this  in  ^te  of  the  fact  that  the  old 


§76  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS     [IX.  80-X.  8. 

system  was  difficult  if  not  impossible  (ver.  5),  while  the  new 
system  was  easy  and  within  the  reach  of  eUHys.  6-10),  indeed 
universal  in  its  scope  (w.  11-13). 

IX.  **  What  then  is  the  position  of  the  argument  so  far  ?  One 
fact  is  clear.  A  number  of  Gentiles  who  did  not  profess  to  be 
in  pursuit  of  righteousness  have  unexpectedly  come  upon  it; 
a  righteousness  however  of  which  the  characteristic  is  that  it  is  not 
earned  by  their  own  efforts  but  is  the  product  of  faith  in  a  power 
outside  them.  **  Israel  on  the  other  hand,  the  chosen  people  of 
God,  although  making  strenuous  efforts  after  a  rule  of  moral  and 
religious  life  that  would  win  for  them  righteousness,  have  not 
succeeded  in  attaining  to  the  accomplishment  of  such  a  rule. 
"  How  has  this  come  about  ?  Because  they  sought  it  in  their  own 
way,  not  in  God's  way.  They  did  not  seek  it  by  faith,  but  their  aim 
was  to  pursue  it  by  a  rigid  performance  of  works.  **  And  hence 
that  happened  to  them  which  the  Prophet  Isaiah  foretold.  He 
spoke  (xxviii.  16)  of  a  rock  which  the  Lord  would  lay  in  Zion 
and  foretold  that  if  a  man  put  his  trust  in  it,  he  would  never 
have  cause  to  be  ashamed.  But  elsewhere  (viil  14)  he  calls  it 
'  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence,'  implying  that  those 
who  have  not  this  faith  will  consider  it  a  stumbling-block  in  their 
way.  This  rock  is,  as  you  have  always  been  told,  the  Messiah.  The 
Messiah  has  come ;  and  the  Jews  through  want  of  faith  have 
regarded  as  a  cause  of  offence  that  which  is  the  comer  stone  of 
the  whole  building. 

X.  ^  Let  me  pause  for  a  moment,  brethren.  It  is  a  serious 
accusation  that  I  am  bringing  against  my  fellow-countrymen.  But 
I  repeat  that  I  do  it  from  no  feeling  of  resentment.  How  great  is 
my  heart's  good  will  for  them  I  How  earnest  my  prayer  to  God 
for  their  salvation  I  '  For  indeed  as  a  fellow-countryman,  as  one 
who  was  once  as  they  are,  I  can  testify  that  they  are  full  of  seal 
for  God.  That  is  not  the  point  in  which  they  have  failed ;  it  is 
that  they  have  not  guided  their  zeal  by  that  true  knowledge  which 
is  the  result  of  genuine  spiritual  insight.  'Righteousness  they 
strove  after,  but  there  were  two  ways  of  attaining  to  it.  The  one 
was  God's  method  :  of  that  they  remaiiied  ignorant.  The  othei 
was  their  own  method:  to  this  they  clung  blindly  and  wilfully 
They  refused  to  submit  to  God's  plan  of  salvation. 


Z.4-12.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  •77 

•Their  own  method  was  based  on  a  rigid  performance  of  legal 
enactments.  But  that  has  been  ended  in  Christ.  Now  there  ia 
a  new  and  a  better  way,  one  which  has  two  characteristics ;  it  is 
based  on  the  principle  of  faith,  and  it  is  universal  and  for  all  men 
alike,  '(i)  It  is  based  on  the  principle  of  faith.  Hence  it  is  that 
while  the  old  method  was  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  the  new  is 
easy  and  open  to  alL  The  old  method  righteousness  by  law,  that 
b  by  the  exact  performance  of  legal  rules,  is  aptly  described  by 
Moses  when  he  says  (Lev.  xviii.  5),  'the  man  who  does  these 
things  shall  live/  i.  e.  Life  in  all  its  fulness  here  and  hereafter  was 
to  be  gained  by  undeviating  strictness  of  conduct ;  and  that  con- 
dition we  have  seen  (l  i8-iii  20)  was  impossible  of  fulfilment. 
'But  listen  to  the  proclamation  which  righteousness  by  faith 
makes  to  mankind.  It  speaks  in  well-known  words  which  have 
become  through  it  more  real.  '  There  is  no  need  for  you  to  say, 
Who  will  go  up  into  heaven  ?  Heaven  has  come  to  you ;  Christ 
has  come  down  and  lived  among  men.  ''There  is  no  need  to 
search  the  hidden  places  of  the  deep.  Christ  has  risen.  There 
is  no  need  therefore  to  seek  the  living  among  the  dead.  You  are 
offered  something  which  does  not  require  hard  striving  or  painful 
labour.  *  The  word  of  God  is  very  nigh  thee,  in  thy  heart  and  in 
thy  mouth.'  And  that  word  of  God  is  the  message  of  faith,  the 
Gospel  which  proclaims  *  believe  and  thou  shalt  be  saved ' ;  and 
this  Gospel  we  preach  throughout  the  world.  '  All  it  says  to  you 
is :  '  With  thy  mouth  thou  must  confess  Josus  as  sovereign  Lord, 
with  thy  heart  thou  must  believe  that  God  raised  Him  from  the 
dead.'  "For  that  change  of  heart  which  we  call  faith,  brings 
righteousness,  and  the  path  of  salvation  is  entered  by  the  con- 
fession of  belief  in  Christ  which  a  man  makes  at  his  baptism. 

"  (a)  This  is  corroborated  by  what  the  Prophet  Isaiah  said  (xxviii. 
16)  in  words  quoted  above  (ix.  33),  the  full  meaning  of  which  we 
now  understand :  *  Everyone  that  believeth  in  Him  (i.  e.  the 
Messiah)  shall  not  be  ashamed.'  Moreover  this  word  of  tiis, 
'  everyone,'  introduces  the  second  characteristic  of  the  new  method. 
It  is  universal.  *^And  that  means  that  it  applies  equally  to  Jew 
and  to  Greek.  We  have  shown  that  the  new  covenant  is  open  for 
Greeks  as  well  as  Jews ;  it  is  also  true  to  say  that  the  conditions 
demanded  are  the  same  for  Jew  as  for  Greek.     The  Jew  cannot 


«78  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [UL  80 

keep  to  Ms  old  methods;  he  must  accept  the  new.  And  thii 
must  be  so,  because  there  is  for  all  men  alike  one  Redeemer, 
who  gives  the  wealth  of  His  salvation  to  all  those  whoever  they 
may  be  who  call  on  His  name.  ^  And  so  the  prophet  Joel,  fore- 
telling the  times  of  the  foundation  of  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
says  (ii.  3a)  '  Everyone  that  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord 
(i.  c.  of  the  Messiah)  shall  be  saved.'  When  the  last  days  come,  in 
the  times  of  storm  and  anguish,  it  is  the  worshippers  of  the 
Messiah,  those  who  are  enrolled  as  His  servants  and  call  on  Hia 
Name,  who  will  find  a  strong  salvation. 

IX.  80-X.  21.  St.  Paul  now  passes  to  another  aspect  of  the 
subject  he  is  discussing.  He  has  considered  the  rejection  ol 
Israel  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Divine  justice  and  power,  he 
is  now  to  approach  it  from  the  side  of  human  responsibility.  The 
concluding  verses  of  the  ninth  chapter  and  the  whole  of  the  tenth 
are  devoted  to  proving  the  guilt  of  Israel.  It  is  first  sketched  out 
in  ix.  30-33.  Israel  have  sought  righteousness  in  the  wrong  way, 
in  that  they  have  rejected  the  Messiah.  Then  St.  Paul,  over- 
whelmed with  the  sadness  of  the  subject,  pauses  for  a  moment 
(x.  I,  3)  to  emphasize  his  grief.  He  returns  to  the  discussion  by 
pointing  out  that  they  have  adhered  to  their  own  method  instead 
of  accepting  God's  method  (vv.  j,  3).  And  this  in  spite  o( 
several  circumstances  ;  (i)  that  the  old  method  has  been  done 
away  with  in  Christ  (ver.  4);  (a)  that  while  the  old  method 
was  hard  and  difficult  the  new  is  easy  and  within  the  reach  of 
all  (w.  5-10);  (3)  that  the  new  method  is  clearly  universal  and 
intended  for  all  alike  (w.  11-13).  At  ver.  14  he  passes  to  another 
aspect  of  the  question :  it  might  still  be  asked :  Had  they  full 
opportunities  of  knowing?  In  w.  14-ti  it  is  shown  that  both 
through  the  full  and  universal  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and 
through  their  own  Prophets,  they  have  had  every  opportunity  given 
them. 

80.  rl  o2r  Ipouf&cr;  The  oiy,  as  Is  almost  always  the  case  in 
St.  Paul,  sums  up  the  results  of  the  previous  paragraph.  What 
then  is  the  conclusion  of  this  discussion  ?  *  It  is  not  that  God's 
promise  has  failed,  but  that  while  Gentiles  have  obtained  "righteous- 
ness," the  Jews,  though  they  strove  for  it,  have  failed.'  This  summary 
of  the  result  so  far  arrived  at  leads  to  the  question  being  asked ; 
Why  is  it  so  ?  And  that  introduces  the  second  point  in  St  Paul's 
discussion — the  gmlt  of  the  Jews. 

i^T^  iQvr\  K.T.X.  There  are  two  constructions  possible  for  these 
words.  I.  The  sentence  on  . .  .  n^i>  m  wianms  may  contain  the 
answer  to  the  question  asked  in  W  ov»  ipmi^v ;   This  interpretation 


IZ.  80,  8L]         the  unbelief  OF  ISRAEL  %J9 

a  probably  right  The  difficulty,  however,  is  that  nowhere  else  m 
this  Epistle,  where  St.  Paul  uses  the  expression  W  ovi'  epovfitv,  docs 
he  give  it  an  immediate  answer.  He  follows  it  by  a  second 
question  (as  in  ix.  14) ;  and  this  is  not  a  mere  accident.  It  is 
a  result  of  the  sense  of  deliberation  contained  in  the  previous 
words  with  which  a  second  question  rather  than  a  definite  state- 
ment seems  to  harmonize,  s.  The  alternative  rendering  would  be 
to  take  the  words  iri  .  .  .  f(f>6a<rtv,  as  such  a  second  question. 
*  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Shall  we  say  that,  while  Gentiles  who 
did  not  seek  righteousness  have  obtained  it,  Israel  has  not  attained 
to  it?'  The  answer  to  this  question  then  would  be  a  positive 
one,  not  given  directly  but  implied  in  the  further  one  itari ;  '  Yes, 
but  why?' — The  difficulty  in  this  construction,  which  must  tell 
against  it,  is  the  awkwardness  of  the  appended  sentence  diKaioavmjp 
dc  TTiw  etc  nltn-Mttg.  Lipsius'  suggestion  that  in  r=  <  because '  is  quite 
impossible. 

26ktj  :  '  heathen,'  not  *  the  heathen ' ;  some,  not  all :  nam 
nonnuiti  pagani  fidtm  turn  Christo  adtunxerant,  rh  wXtipafia  tw 
iBvSiv  ad  Christi  xacra  nondum  accesserat.     Fri. 

SitSKOKTa  .  .  .  KarAaPc:  'correlative  terms  for  pursuing  and 
overtaking'  (Field,  Otium  Norvicense,  iii.  p.  96).  The  metaphor 
as  in  TpixovTos  (ver.  16)  is  taken  from  the  racecourse,  and  probably 
the  words  were  used  without  the  original  meaning  being  lost  sight 
of:  cf.  I  Cor.  ix.  24.  The  two  words  are  coupled  together 
£xod.  XV.  9 ;  Ecclus.  xi.  10;  xxvii.  8;  Phil.  iii.  12  ;  Herod,  ii.  30; 
Lucian,  HermoU  'j'j.  dirnKdv  is  a  characteristic  Pauline  word  occur- 
ring in  letters  of  all  periods:  i  Thess.  (i),  i  Cor.  (i),  Rom.  (4), 
PhU.  (a),  I  Tim.  (i),  a  Tim.  (i). 

%Maio(ruyr\¥  hi  hmits  and  explains  the  previous  use  of  the  word. 
'  But  remember,  (and  this  will  explain  any  difficulty  that  you  may 
have),  that  it  was  ««  niareus' :  cf.  iii.  a  a  ^ikmoovvt]  8«  Qfoi:  i  Cor. 
ii.  6  ao<\>'ua>  if  XaXoO/My  d>  rolt  rcXctotr'  ao<f)iav  ii  ov  rov  alStvos 
Mvrov. 

Some  nnall  Tariations  of  readings  may  be  jn«t  noticed.  In  yer.  31  the 
■econd  SiKaioavvTjs  after  th  v6noy  of  the  TR.  is  omitted  by  decisive  authority, 
u  also  is  v6fJtov  (after  ipfuv)  in  ver.  32,  and  yap  after  irpoaiKoxpav.  In  ver.  33 
wai  read  by  the  TR.  has  crept  in  from  x.  1 1 ,  and  Western  MSS.  read  ob  ftil 
KarcuaxwO^  to  harmonize  with  the  LXX. 

81.  'lapo^X  %i  n.T.X.  These  words  contain  the  real  difficulty  erf 
the  statement,  of  which  alone  an  explanation  is  necessary,  and  is 
given.  '  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  some  Gentiles  even  without 
seeking  it  have  attained  righteousness,  Israel  has  failed.' 

r6^oy  %iKaioa6yn% :  <  a  rule  of  life  which  would  produce  righteous- 
ness' :  cf.  iii.  37  vifjMt  nivTfas  :  vii.  ai. 

ofiK  i^Qatn :  '  did  not  attain  it ' ;  they  are  represented  as  con- 
tinually piu-suing  after  something,  the  accompUshment  o(  which 


a8o  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [IX.  81-8* 

as  continually  escapes  them.     All  idea  of  anticipation  has  been 
iost  in  (pedvu  in  later  Greek,  cf.  Phil,  iii.  i6;  Dan.  iv.  19  (Theod.) 

i<^6acrtv  fit  T(iv  ovpav6v. 

82.  oTi  ofiii  ^K  wioTfws  .  .  .  irpoff^Ko4»a*'.  Two  constructions  are 
possible  for  these  words.  (1)  We  may  put  a  comma  at  cpy«v  and 
supply  bLWKovTfs.  Then  the  passage  will  run :  '  Why  did  they  not 
attain  it  ?  because  pursuing  after  it  not  by  faith  but  by  works  they 
stumbled/  &c.  ;  or  (2)  we  may  put  a  full  stop  at  tpyav  and  supply 
f^iu^av.  *  Why  did  they  not  attain  it  ?  because  they  pursued  after 
it  not  by  faith  but  by  works,  they  stumbled,'  &c.  The  sentence  has 
more  emphasis  if  taken  in  this  way,  and  the  grammatical  construc- 
tion is  on  the  whole  easier. 

dXX*  &s  H  «PY«^'  The  it  introduces  a  subjective  idea.  St.  Paul 
wishes  to  guard  himself  from  asserting  definitely  that  t^  (pyav  wai 
a  method  by  which  vofiov  iiKaiotrvvrjs  might  be  pursued.  He  there- 
fore  represents  it  as  an  idea  of  the  Jews,  as  a  way  by  which  they 
thought  they  could  gain  it.  So  in  a  Cor.  ii.  1 7  aXX*  ox  »|  tlXucpivtiat 
represents  the  purpose  and  aim  of  the  Apostle;  a  Cor.  xi.  17 
6  XaXw,  ov  Kara  Kvpiov  \a\S>,  aXX'  its  iv  a<Ppo<rvi>t]  represents  an  aspect 
from  which  his  words  may  be  regarded ;  Philem.  14  'va  fif)  wr  Kara 
ii'dyicTip  TO  dya66v  aov  §  aX\a  Kara  iKovaiov :  *  even  the  appearance 
of  constraint  must  be  avoided'  (cf.  Lightfoot,  ad  loc).  The  «s 
gives  a  subjective  idea  to  the  phrase  with  which  it  is  placed,  but  the 
exact  force  must  be  determined  by  the  context. 

irpo(TeKoi|»aK :  npoaKoirrnw  rir'i  means  not  '  to  stumble  over  by 
inadvertence/  but  '  to  be  annoyed  with,'  '  show  irritation  at.'  The 
Jews,  in  that  the  cross  was  to  them  a  aKovdaKov,  had  stumbled 
over  Christ,  shown  themselves  irritated  and  annoyed,  and  expressed 
their  indignation,  see  Grm.  Thayer,  xu6  voc. 

T«  \i0«  TOO  irpoffKiSfifiaTOs :  '  a  stone  which  causes  men  to 
stumble.'  Taken  from  the  LXX  of  Is.  viii.  14.  The  stone  at 
which  the  Jewish  nation  has  stumbled,  which  has  been  to  them 
a  cause  of  offence,  is  the  Christ,  who  has  come  in  a  way,  which, 
owing  to  their  want  of  faith,  has  prevented  them  from  recognizing 
or  accepting  Him,  cf.  i  Pet.  ii.  8. 

33.  1800,  Ti0T)fit  iv  Iiwi'  K.T.X.  The  quotation  is  taken  from  the 
LXX  of  Is.  xxviii.  16,  fused  with  words  from  Is.  viii.  14.  The 
latter  part  of  the  verse  is  quoted  again  x.  11,  and  the  whole  in 
I  Pet.  ii.  6. 

A  comparison  of  the  different  rariationi  k  interesting,  (i)  The  LXX 
reads  J5oi»  kfui  kn^dWoi  (U  rd  BtfiiXia  li&iv.  In  both  the  passages  in  the 
N.T.  the  words  are  /5oii  tIOjjiju  iv  'S.iiiv.  (a)  For  the  LXX  K'lOov  ■no\vT^\^ 
kK\(icT6v  SiKpoyaiviaiov  fVTtfiov,  St.  Peter  read*  AKpoyajviaiov  iic\(KTov  Ivrtnor : 
while  St.  Paul  substitutes  \iOov  irpoaKdfXfMrot  «ai  virpav  OKavhakov  taken 
from  Is.  viii.  14  koI  ov\  iis  \l9ov  itpoaKuntxari  avvavr-qaiaOt  ov5i  in  irirpiu 
vTwuari.  Here  St.  Pete:  ii.  8  agrees  with  St.  Paul  in  writing  nirpa  aKavidXot 
£»i  9«Tpa$  wriiftaTi.     (3)  The  LXX  proceeds  tU  ri  $*fii\ia  air^,  which  both 


IX.  as.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  flSl 

St  Peter  and  St  Paal  omit     (4)  The  LXX  proceeds  not  6  vicrrcikm'  oi  /ii| 

MaraiaxwOi.  Both  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  bring  out  the  personal  reference 
by  inserting  Ir'  tiiir^,  while  St  Paul  reada  imraiax'^vOiiatTai  and  in  s.  il 
adds  vat. 

Iir*  afirw.  Personal,  of  the  Messiah,  *  He  that  believeth  on  Him 
shall  not  be  ashamed.'     St.  Paul  inserts  the  words,  both  here  and  in 

X.  II,  to  emphasize  the  personal  reference.  If  the  reference  were 
impersonal,  the  feminine  would  be  required  to  agree  with  the 
nearest  word  irirpa. 

iiara.iiryjiv^'f[ijtTcn.  Either  an  incorrect  translation  of  the  Hebrew, 
or  based  on  a  different  reading.  The  RV.  of  Isaiah  reads  '  shall 
noLmake  haste.' 

lln  the  O.  T.  neither  of  these  passages  has  anv  direct  Messianic 
leferencer  In  both_Jehovah  is  the  rock  founded  on  Zioh.  In 
Is.  viii.  14  He  is  represented  as  a  'stumbling-block'  to  the 
unbeliever ;  in  Is.  xxviii.  16  He  is  the  strength  of  those  that  believe 
in  Him.  But  from  the  very  beginning  the  word  \i6os  was  applied 
to  Christ,  primarily  with  reference  to  Ps.  cxviii.  33  'the  Stone 
which  the  builders  rejected'  (Matt.  xxi.  43;  Mark  xii.  10;  Luke 
XX.  17;  Acts  iv.  1 1  by  St.  PeteiVI  The  other  passages  in  which 
the  word  \'t6ot  was  used  in  the  LXX  came  to  be  applied  as  here, 
and  in  Eph,  ii.  30  oKpoyuviaiov  is  used  almost  as  a  proper  name. 
By  the  time  of  Justin  Martyr  \i6os  is  used  almost  as  a  name  of  the 

Christ :  tartt  koI  Taira  ovto>s  t\ovra  if  Xtytis,  Koi  OTi  nadrjTot  Xpiaros 
npnecpTiTevdq  fiiXkiiv  tivai  icai  \l6os  K(K\tjTat  [Dial.  36.  p.  123  C.  ed. 
Otto)  :  •  yap  Xpicrror  /SacriXcvr  koi  Upcvs  xat  6*6s  koi  Kvpios  koI  ayyeXos 
Koi  avdpuiros   ita\  apxitrrpdrriyns  koi  \i6os   (ib.   34.  p.  1 1 3  D.)      These 

quotations  seem  to  imply  that  \i6os  was  a  name  for  the  Messiah 
among  the  Jews,  and  that  Justin  wishes  to  piove  that  Christ  fulfils 
that  title,  and  this  seems  to  be  corroborated  by  quotations  from 
Jewish  writings,  not  only  in  later  books  but  even  earlier.  In  Is. 
viii.  14,  Sanhedrtn  38.  i  Films  Davidis  non  venit  donee  duae 
iomus  patrum  ex  Jxraele  deficiant,  quae  sunt  Aechmalotarcha  Baby- 
'.onicus  ei  princeps  terrae  hraeliticae  q.  d.  Et  erit  in  Sanciuarium 
et  in  lapidem  percussionis  et  petram  offensionis  duabus  domibus 
Israel.  Is.  xxviii.  16  is  paraphrased  by  the  Targum  Jonathan, 
Ecct  ego  constituam  in  Sion  regem,  regem  fortem,  poteniem  el 
terribilem ;  corroborabo  eum  et  confortabo  eum  dicit  Propheta. 
lusti  autem  qui  crediderint  haec  cum  venerit  tribulatio  non  com- 
mcvebuntur,  and  some  apparently  read  regem  Messias  regem 
potentem.  Ps.  cxviiL  32  is  paraphrased  by  the  same  Targum, 
Puerum  despexerunt  aedificatorts,  qui  fuit  inter  filios  Israel  ei 
meruit  constitui  rex  et  dominator.  For  these  and  other  reff.  see 
Schoettgen,  ii.  160,  606. 

A  comparison  of  Romans  and  i  Peter  shows  that  both  Apostles 
agree  in  quoting  the  same  passages  together,  and  both  have 


S89  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS      [IX  88-Z.  L 

a  number  of  common  yariants  from  the  normal  text  of  the  LXX. 

This  may  have  arisen  from  St.  Peter's  acquaintance  with  the 
Romans ;  but  another  hypothesis  may  be  suggested,  which  will 
perhaps  account  for  the  facts  more  naturally.  We  know  that  to 
prove  from  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  was  the  constant 
practice  of  the  early  Christians.  Is  it  not  possible  that  even  as  early 
as  this  there  may  have  been  collections  of  O.  T.  texts  used  for  con- 
troversial purposes  arranged  according  to  their  subjects,  as  were 
the  later  Testimoma  of  Cyprian,  where  one  of  the  chapters  is  headed: 
Quod  idem  et  lapis  dicius  sit  {Test.  ii.  i6) ?  See  on  ix.  25,  26  supra. 
X.  1.  There  is  no  break  in  the  argument  between  this  chapter 
and  vv.  30-33  of  chap,  ix ;  but  before  expanding  this  part  of  the 
subject,  the  Apostle  pauses  for  a  moment,  impelled  by  his  own 
strong  feelings  and  the  deep  tragedy  of  his  countryman's  rejection, 
to  express  his  sorrow  and  affection. 

Mardoo  admitted  into  his  text  ver.  a-4,  which  he  was  able  to  use  u 
a  proof  text  of  his  fundamental  doctrine  that  the  Jews  had  been  ignorant  of 
the  '  higher  God.'  The  whole  or  almost  the  whole  passage  which  follows 
X.  5-xi.  3a,  he  appears  to  have  omitted,  Zahn,  p.  518.   Tert.  Adv.  Marc.  r.  13. 

dSeXt^oi.  The  position  increases  the  emphasis  of  a  word  always 
used  by  the  Apostle  when  he  wishes  to  be  specially  emphatic. 
The  thought  of  the  Christian  brotherhood  intensifies  the  contrast 
with  the  Israelites  who  are  excluded. 

fi^K :  without  a  corresponding  Sc.  The  logical  antithesis  is  given 
in  ver.  3. 

cuSoKia :  '  good  will/ '  good  pleasure/  not  'desire/  which  the  word 
never  means. 

The  word  tvSoitia  means  '  good  pleasure '  either  (i)  in  relation  to  oneself 

when  it  comes  to  mean  'contentment,'  Ecclus.  xxix.  23  M  fnicp^  xai  fitydkqt 
(iSuidav  lx«  :  ib.  xxxv  (xxxii),  14  oi  opOpi^ovrts  tvprjaovai  fvSoKtay  :  2  Thess. 
J.  1 1  xal  wXrjpucy  irdcray  tvooKtav  dyaOtuavvTjs  koi  ipr/ov  viffTfon  iv  Svydfiu  :  A. 
So/,  xvi.  la  :  or  (2)  in  relation  to  others,  'good  will,' '  benevolence,'  Ecclos, 
ix.  la  fjiii  txiZoKTiaigs  iv  tvSoKit}  dat&aiv :  Phil.  i.  15  riytt  niv  Sid  <p66yoy  itai 
ipiy,  Twit  Si  leal  fit'  dSoKtay  ruy  'S.pKrrov  tcrjpvffffovffiy :  (3)  in  this  sense  it 
came  to  be  used  almost  technically  of  the  good  will  of  God  to  man,  £ph. 
i.  5  Kurd  T^v  (vSoKiay  roO  OfX^fiaros  axirov :  L  9  Kard  rify  €iSo4clat>  ovrov : 
Ps.  Sol.  viii.  3<). 

The  above  interpretation  of  the  word  is  different  from  that  taken  by  Fritzscbe 
{adloc.),  Lft.  ^ad  Phil.  i.  15),  Grm.  Thayer,  Lex.  (s.  ▼.),  Philippi  and  Tholuck 
'yod  loc.).  The  word  seems  never  to  be  used  onqoalified  to  mean  '  desire ' ;  the 
instance  quoted  by  Lft.  does  not  support  it. 

i\  %i'i\tn% :  non  orasset  Paulus  si  absolute  rtprobati  esteni.     Beng. 
CIS  aiorqpiaK  =  tea  <Tti6i>(ri;  cf.   Ver.   4   tit  iutaiotTvvffv  and  L   5  '^' 
vnoK^rfv  wioTtois. 

The  additions  ff  before  wpis  rbv  %»iiy  and  k0rtw  before  clt  rmrtifiar  in 
the  TR.  are  giammatical  explanatioQS.  The  reading  toS  ^Ivpa^k  for  airntm 
may  have  been  merely  an  explanatory  gloss,  or  may  have  arisen  threagb  the 
v&st  bemg  the  beginning  of  a  lesson  in  church  serrioea. 


X.  2-4.J  THE   UNBELIEF  OF   ISRAEL  »9$ 

2.  i&apTupu  Y'^P*     ^^^^  gives  the  reason  for  St.  Paul's  grief. 

He  had  been  a  Jew  Trfpiaa-orepai  (rjKcorfjs  vndpxoiv  (Gal.  i.  14;  cf. 
Acts  xxii.  3)  and  hence  he  knew  only  too  well  the  extent  both  at 
their  zeal  and  of  their  ignorance. 

IriKov  0€oO.  Obj.  genitive :  *  zeal  for  God '  (not  as  in  t  Cor. 
xi.  2).  An  O.  T.  expression  :  Judith,  ix.  4  e^rjXriXTav  rbv  fiJXoV  <tov: 
Ps.  Ixviii  [Ixix] ;  cxviii  [cxix].  139  6  f^Xoy  tov  o'kov  (tov.  i  Mace, 
ii.  58  C^Xor  vofwv.  Jo wett  quotes  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Caium,  §  16  (Mang. 
il  562)  '  Ready  to  endure  death  like  immortality  rather  than  suffer 
the  neglect  of  the  least  of  their  national  customs.'  St.  Paul  selects 
the  very  word  which  the  Jew  himself  would  have  chosen  to  express 
just  that  zeal  on  which  more  than  anything  else  he  would  have 
prided  himself. 

nar  ^iriyfOKriK.  The  Jews  were  destitute,  not  of  yvuxns,  but  of 
the  higher  disciplined  knowledge,  of  the  true  moral  discernment 
by  which  they  might  learn  the  right  way.  firiyvaais  (see  Lft.  on 
Col.  i.  9,  to  whose  note  there  is  noihing  to  add)  means  a  higlier 
and  more  perfect  knowledge,  and  hence  it  is  used  especiall)-  iind 
almost  technically  for  knowledge  of  God,  as  being  the  highest 
and  most  perfect  form  :  see  on  i.  28  and  cf.  iii.  20. 

8.  dyfooufTfs  ydp.  This  verse  gives  the  reason  for  ov  kqt' 
eiriyvcofTiv,  and  the  antithesis  to  17  nev  fv8oKia.  dyvoovvres  means  *  not 
knowing/  '  being  ignorant  of,'  not  '  misunderstanding.'  St.  Paul 
here  states  simply  the  fact  of  the  ignorance  of  his  fellow-country- 
men ;  he  does  not  yet  consider  how  far  this  ignorance  is  culpable : 
that  point  he  makes  evident  later  (w.  14  sq.). 

j^v  ToO  0€ou  SiKaioaunf|K  .  .  .  tt)»'  ISiaK.  St.  Paul  contrasts  two 
methods  of  righteousness.  On  the  one  side  there  was  the  righteous- 
ness which  came  from  God,  and  was  to  be  sought  in  the  manner 
He  had  prescribed,  on  the  other  was  a  righteousness  which  they 
hoped  to  win  by  their  own  methods,  and  by  their  own  merit. 
Their  zeal  had  been  blind  and  misdirected.  In  their  eagerness  to 
pursue  after  the  latter,  they  had  remained  ignorant  of  and  had  not 
submitted  to  the  method  (as  will  be  shown,  a  much  easier  one) 
which  God  Himself  had  revealed. 

u-ireTdyTjcaK.  Middle,  '  submit  themselves,'  cf.  Jas.  iv.  7 ;  i  Pet 
"•  13;  V.  5  ;  Winer,  §  xxxiv,  3.  p.  3*7  E.T. 

The  second  iiKaioffvvr)v  after  iSlav  of  the  TR.  U  supported  bj  N  only 
vnoDg  good  authorities,  and  by  Tisch.  only  among  recent  cditon;  it  ii 
omitted  by  A  B  D  E  P,  Vnlg.  Boh.  Arm.,  and  many  Fathers. 

4.  riko^  Y^P  t^^it-ou  K.rX.  St.  Paul  has  in  the  preceding  verse 
been  contrasting  two  methods  of  obtaining  SiKaioavvtj;  one,  that 
ordained  by  God,  as  ix.  3a  shows,  a  method  eV  mWfox ;  the  other 
that  pursued  by  the  Jews,  a  method  8ia  popov.  The  latter  has  ceased 
to  be  possible,  as  St.  Paul  now  proves  by  showing  that,  by  the  coming 
of  Chiist  Law  as  a  means  of  obtaining  righteousness  had  bees 


384  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [X.  ^ 

brought  to  an  end.  The  yap  therefore  introduces  the  reason,  not 
for  the  actual  statement  of  ver.  3,  that  the  Jews  had  not  submitted 
to  the  Divine  method,  but  for  what  was  implied — that  they  were 
wrong  in  so  doing. 

tAos  :  '  end,'  '  termination.'  Law  at  a  method  or  principle  of 
righteousness  had  been  done  away  with  in  Christ.  '  Christ  is  the 
end  of  law  as  death  is  the  end  of  life.'  Gif.  Cf.  Dem.  C.  Eubuliden, 
1306,  25  t^niroi  iraaiv  €<mv  avdponrois  riXot  tov  ^iov  BdvaTos  ((JUOted 
by  Fri.  and  by  many  writers  after  him). 

The  theological  idea  of  this  verse  is  much  expanded  in  later 
Epistles,  and  is  connected  definitely  with  the  death  of  Christ :  Eph. 
ii.  15  'He  abolished  in  His  flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of 
commandments  contained  in  ordinances';  Col.  ii.  14  'Having 
blotted  out  the  bond  written  in  ordinances  that  was  against  us, 
which  was  contrary  to  us :  and  He  hath  taken  it  out  of  the  way, 
nailing  it  to  the  cross.'  This  last  passage  is  paraphrased  by  Lft. : 
'  Then  and  there  [Christ]  cancelled  the  bond  which  stood  valid 
against  us  (for  it  bore  our  own  signature),  the  bond  which  engaged 
us  to  fulfil  all  the  law  of  ordinances,  which  was  our  stem  pitiless 
tyrant.  Ay,  this  very  bond  hath  Christ  put  out  of  sight  for  ever, 
nailing  it  to  His  cross,  and  rending  it  with  His  body,  and  killing 
it  in  His  death.'  And  as  he  points  out,  a  wider  reference  must 
be  given  to  the  expression;  it  cannot  be  confined  to  the  Jews. 
The  ordinances,  although  primarily  referring  to  the  Mosaic  law, 
'  will  include  all  forms  of  positive  decrees  in  which  moral  or  social 
principles  are  embodied  or  religious  duties  defined ;  and  the  "  bond  " 
is  the  moral  assent  of  the  conscience  which  (as  it  were)  signs  and 
seals  the  obligation.' 

'  Although  the  moral  law  is  eternal,  yet  under  the  Gospel  it  loses 
its  form  of  external  law,  and  becomes  an  internal  principle  of  life.' 
Lid. 

I'cJfAou  :  *  Law '  as  a  principle  (so  Weiss,  Oltramare,  Gif.),  not 
the  Law,  the  Mosaic  Law  (so  the  mass  of  commentators).  It  is 
not  possible  indeed  to  lay  stress  on  the  absence  of  the  article  here, 
because  the  article  being  dropped  before  TtXos  it  is  naturally  also 
dropped  before  vofiov  (see  on  ii.  1 3),  and  although  St.  Paul  might 
have  written  t6  yap  t(\os  tov  vofiov,  yet  this  would  not  exactly  have 
suited  his  purpose,  for  tcKos  is  the  predicate  of  the  sentence  thrown 
forward  for  emphasis.  But  that  the  application  of  the  term  must 
be  general  is  shown  by  the  whole  drift  of  the  argument  (see  below), 
;  by  the  words  navri  tw  nia-Tevovri  proving  that  the  passage  cannot  b»e 
I  confined  to  the  Jews,  and  consequently  not  to  the  Mosaic  law,  and 
by  the  correct  reading  in  ver.  5  rfjv  ««  v6nov  (see  critical  note). 

The  interpretation  of  this  verse  has  been  much  confused  owing 
to  incorrect  translations  of  riXos  (fulfilment,  aim),  the  confusion  <m 
fofjios  and  6  vopos,  and  a  misapprehension  of  the  drift  of  the  passage. 


( 


X.  4,  0.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  385 

That  the  version  given  above  is  correct  is  shown  (i)  by  the  mean- 
ing of  TfXof.  It  is  quite  trae  that  Christ  is  the  Tt\(iu>aii  of  the 
Law,  that  in  Him  what  was  typical  has  its  fulfilment;  but  reXot 
never  means  T«X<t«»«rir  (as  it  is  taken  here  by  Orig.  Erasmus,  ftc). 
Again,  it  is  equally  true  that  the  Law  is  the  naiiayaySs  that  brings 
men  to  Christ,  and  that  Christ  can  be  described  as  the  object  or 
goal  of  the  Law  (as  the  passage  if  taken  by  Chrys.,  other  fathers, 
and  Va.  amongst  English  commentators) :  but  reKos  is  only  used 
once  in  this  sense  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles  ( i  Tim.  i.  5),  Xpiaros  would 
become  the  predicate,  rtKos  would  then  require  the  article,  and  vo/ios 
would  have  to  be  interpreted  of  the  Jewish  Law.  The  normal 
meaning  of  the  word,  and  the  correct  one  here,  is  that  of '  termina- 
tion' (so  Aug.  De  W.  Mey.  Fri.  Weiss,  Okramare):  U)  hv  the 
ipeaning  of  yti/xot  (see  abov&).  This  is  interpreted  incorrectly  of  the 
Jewish  Law  only  by  almost  all  commentators  (Orig.  Chrys.  ani 
all  the  Fathers,  Erasmus,  Calv.  De  W.  Mey.  Va.) ;  (3)  by  the 
context.  This  verse  is  introduced  to  explain  ver.  3,  which  asserts 
that  of  two  methods  of  obtaining  righteousness  onais  right,  the 
otherwrong.  bt.  Wul  here  confirms  this  by  showing  that  the  one 
as  come  to  an  end  so  as  to  introduce  the  other.  It  is  his  object 
to  mark  the  contrast  between  the  two  methods  of  righteousness 
and  not  their  resemblance. 

But  the  misinterpretation  is  not  confined  to  this  verse,  it  colours 
the  interpretation  of  the  whole  passage.  It  is  not  St.  Paul's  aim  to 
show  that  the  Jews  ought  to  have  realized  their  mistake  because 
the  O.  T.  dispensation  pointed  to  Christ,  but  to  contrast  the  two 
methods.  It  is  only  later  (w.  14  f.)  that  he  shows  that  the  Jews 
had  had  full  opportunities  and  warnings. 

CIS  iiK.aioir6ini\v  narrX  tu  irioreuon-i :  '  so  that  duuuoavinj  may  come 
to  everyone  that  believes,'  •»o  that  tveryone  by  believing  may 
obtain  dtxato<rvyi;.' 

Ommi  ertdtnti,  trtutatur  ri  ertdmti  v.  i  aq.,  ri  tmmi  v.  il  iq.    wurrl, 
0mm  «s  iudaeis  $t  gtntihu.    Bcng. 

6-10.  St.  Paul  proceeds  to  describe  the  two  modes  of  obtaining 
hiKaiomjvri  in  language  drawn  from  the  O.  T.,  which  had  become 
proverbial. 

6.  Mu(ri)s  yip  Ypii<|>ci  k.tX  Taken  from  Lev.  xviii.  5,  which  is 
quoted  also  in  Gat  iii.  la.  The  original  (A  noir](Tas  auBpanos  (riatrai 
iv  avToit)  is  slighUy  modified  to  suit  the  grammar  of  this  passage, 
T171'  hiKcuofrvvrfv  nji'  «(t  yd^ov  being  made  the  object  of  jroijjora?.  St.  Paul 
quotes  the  words  to  mean  that  the  condition  of  obtaining  life  by 
law  is  that  of  fulfilment,  a  condition  which  in  contrast  to  the  other 
method  described  immediately  afterwards  is  hard,  if  not  im- 
possible. On  this  difficulty  of  obeying  the  law  he  has  laid  stress 
again  and  again  in  the  fint  part  of  the  Epistle,  and  it  is  this 


185  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [X.  5-B. 

that  he  means  by  rdy  rd/iov  r«»  hrokmw  in  Eph.  ii    15  (quoted 

above). 

(i^acTai :  shall  obtain  life  in  its  deepest  sense  both  here  and 
hereafier  (see  pp.  180,  196). 

There  are  a  number  of  small  variationi  ia  the  text  of  this  ▼one.  (i)  Sn 
is  placed  before  t^j/  SiKaioaw-qy  by  N*  A  D*,  Vnlg.  Boh.,  Orig.-lat,  after  »'<5/4oi» 
by  N"  B  D"  E  F  G  K  L  P  &c.,  Syrr.,  Chryt  Thdrt.  &e.  (a)  U  v6tiov  is  read 
by  K  B,  iic  Tov  v6nov  by  the  mass  of  later  authorities.  (3)  6  woiriffas  ia 
read  without  any  addition  by  K*  AD  E,  Vnlg.,  Orig.  )at.,  alri  is  added  by 
B  F  G  K  L  P  &c.,  Syrr.,  Chrys.  Thdrt  &c,  tarn  by  d**  e  f.  (4)  &vepuiros  is 
om.  by  F  G,  Chrys.  ;  5)  iv  air^  is  read  by  K  A  B  minttsc.  pam.,  Vidg.  Boh. 
Orig.-lat.,  If  avTofs  D  E  F  G  K  L  P  &c.  Syrr.,  Chrys.  Thdrt.  &c. 

The  original  text  was  otj  ri\v  SiicaiocTvvrjy  rfjv  ii€  v6nov  6  woirjoas  av9pwvo% 
(fjofTat  iv  avTTi.  The  alteration  of  avT&  .  .  .  aiiroh  came  fiom  a  desire  to 
make  the  passage  correspond  with  the  LXX,  or  Gal.  iii.  13  (hence  the 
omission  of  avBpwnos),  and  this  necessitated  a  change  in  the  position  of  5ri. 
TOV  vofxov  arose  from  an  early  misinterpretation.  The  mixed  text  of  B  ypoupti 
rijv  SiKaioavvTjv  T'fjv  I*  v6nov  in  6  irotrjirai  avrcL  avOponrot  (tjatTcu  ir  airy  and 
of  D  ypcKpti  oTi  T^f  hiKaioavvrpr  r-qy  Ik  toC  vouov  6  voiijaas  avOpotmos  ^ijatrtu 
ir  avToii  are  curious,  bot  help  to  support  K  A  Vulg.  Boh. 

6-8.  The  language  of  St.  Paul  in  these  verses  is  based  upon  the 
LXX  of  Deut.  XXX,  11-14.  Moses  is  enumerating  the  blessings  of 
Israel  if  they  keep  his  law  :  *  if  thou  shalt  obey  the  voice  of  the 
Lord  thy  God,  to  keep  His  commandments  and  His  statutes  which 
are  written  in  this  book  of  the  law ;  if  thou  turn  unto  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul ' ;  he  then  goes  01 
(the  RV.  translation  is  here  modified  to  suit  the  LXX) :  *  "  [For  this 
commandment  which  I  command  thee  this  day,  it  is  not  too  hard 
for  thee,  nor  is  it  far  from  thee.  "  Not  in  heaven  above]  saying. 
Who  shall  go  up  for  us  into  heaven  [and  receive  it  for  us,  and  having 
heard  of  it  we  shall  do  it  ?  "  Nor  is  it  beyond  the  sea],  saying. 
Who  will  go  over  to  the  further  side  of  the  sea  for  us,  [and  receive  it 
for  us,  and  make  it  heard  by  us,  and  we  shall  do  it  ?]  ^*  But  th* 
word  is  very  nigh  thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,  [and  in  thy 
hands,  that  thou  mayest  do  it].'  The  Apostle  selects  certain  words 
out  of  this  passage  and  uses  them  to  describe  the  characteristics  of 
the  new  righteousness  by  faith  as  he  conceives  it 

It  is  important  to  notice  the  Tery  niunerons  rariatiou  between  the 
quotation  and  the  LXX.  In  the  first  place  only  a  few  phrases  ait 
selected  :  the  portions  not  quoted  vet  enclosed  in  bradceta  in  the  translation 
given  above.  Then  in  those  sentences  that  are  quoted  there  are  very  con- 
siderable changes :  (i )  for  the  yi-^oiv  of  the  LXX,  which  is  an  ungrammatical 
translation  of  the  Hebrew,  and  is  without  construction,  is  substituted  ^^ 
tiwQ%  ty  r77  KapSi<f  aov  from  Deut.  viii.  17,  ix.4  :  (3)  for  ris  iiawtpdau  ^puw  tls 
r6  vipav  r^s  0a\aaatjs  is  substituted  ris  KarajiriatTa*  tit  rifv  &&wfaov  in  ordei 
to  make  the  passage  better  suit  the  pnrpose  for  which  it  is  quoted :  (3)  in 

t  The  Bohairic  Version  is  quoted  incorrectly  in  support  of  this  reading. 
The  earn  read  there  does  not  imply  a  variant,  but  was  demanded  bj  the  idioM 
»f  the  language. 


X.  6.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  387 

ver.  8  the  words  v<p6tpa  . .  .h  rait  x*^  ••*  ut  omitted  (this  agrees  with 
the  Hebrew),  as  also  wojciV  avri. 

6.  Vj  %k  in  «{<rr««*t  ftiitaiotrdvii  oStm  Xfyci.  It  is  noticeable  that 
St.  Paul  does  not  introduce  these  words  on  the  authority  of  Scripture 
(as  ver.  1 1),  nor  on  the  authority  of  Moses  (as  ver.  5),  but  merely 
as  a  declaration  of  righteousness  in  its  own  nature.  On  the 
personification  compare  that  of  Wisdom  in  Prov.  i.  ao;  Lk.  xi.  49; 
of  irapdKkrjvit  Heb.  xii.  5- 

Tis  draP^^acrai  cU  fhv  ofipartfr;  In  the  original  passage  these 
words  mean :  The  law  which  I  command  you  is  not  far  off,  it  is 
not  in  heaven,  so  that  you  will  have  to  ask,  Who  will  go  up  to  bring 
it  down  for  us  ?  it  is  very  near  and  not  hard  to  attain.  St.  Paul 
uses  the  same  words  to  express  exactly  the  same  idea,  but  with 
a  completely  different  application.  '  The  Gospel  as  opposed  to 
the  Law  is  not  diflBcult  or  hard  to  attain  to.' 

TOUT  loTi,  XpwTTOK  KaTaYaYcif :  '  that  is  to  say,  to  bring  Christ 
down.'  Just  as  Moses  had  said  that  there  was  no  need  for  anyone 
to  go  up  into  heaven  to  bring  down  the  law,  so  it  is  true — far  more 
true  indeed — to  say  that  there  is  no  need  to  go  into  heaven  to 
bring  down  the  object  of  faith  and  source  of  righteousness — Christ. 
Christ  has  become  man  and  dwelt  among  us.  Faith  is  not  a 
difficult  matter  since  Christ  has  come. 

The  interpretations  suggested  of  this  and  the  following  verses 
have  been  very  nimierous.  tovt*  tarw  occurs  three  times  in  this 
passage,  and  we  must  give  it  the  same  force  in  each  place. 
In  the  third  instance  (ver.  8)  it  is  used  to  give  a  meaning  or 
explanation  to  the  word  t6  prjiui,  which  occtu-s  in  the  quotation ;  it 
introduces  in  fact  what  would  be  technically  known  as  a  '  Midrash ' 
on  the  text  quoted  (so  Mey.  Lid.  Lips,  and  apparently  Va.  Gif.). 
That  is  the  meaning  with  which  the  phrase  has  been  used  in 
ix.  8,  and  is  also  the  meaning  which  it  must  have  here.  The 
infinitive  cannot  be  dependent  on  tovt'  ftn-i  (for  in  all  the  passages 
where  the  phrase  is  used  the  words  that  follow  it  are  in  the  same 
construction  as  the  words  that  precede),  but  is  dependent  on 
dpo^rjatrcu  which  it  explains :  so  Xen.  Mem.  I.  v.  a  (Goodwin,  Greek 

Moods  and  Tenses,  $  97)  d  ^vXoifitOa  r^  entrpeyfrai  ^  miidas  nai8fV(rM, 

^  XprjfiaTa  duuroKTcu.  In  this  and  similar  cases  it  is  not  necessary  to 
emphasize  strongly  the  idea  of  purpose  as  do  Fri.  {nempe  ui  Christum 
in  orbem  ierrarum  deducaf)  and  Lips.  {nUmlich  urn  Christum  htrabzu- 
hokn),  the  infinitive  is  rather  epexegetical  (so  apparently  Va.  Gif.). 
The  LXX  here  reads  Ws  ai/a^^a-«Tat . .  .  km  Xr^-^trai ;  the  construction 
is  changed  because  rovr  iariv  koI  Kord^u  would  hardly  have  been 
clear. 

Of  other  interpretations,  some  do  not  suit  the  grammar.  '  That 
would  be  the  same  thing  as  to  say  Who  will  bring  Christ  down  ? ' 
would  require  ri«  Kara^ti  rip  Xpurriv.     Weiss  translates  '  that  would 


S88  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [Z.  6>a 

be  the  game  thing  as  to  bring  Christ  down/  apparently  making 
the  infinitive  dependent  on  tovt  foriv.  Other  translations  or  para- 
phrases do  not  suit  the  context :  '  Do  not  attempt  great  things, 
only  believe  ' :  or,  '  Do  not  waver  and  ask,  Is  Christ  really  come  ? 
only  believe/  The  object  of  the  passage  is  not  to  exhort  to  faith 
or  to  show  the  necessity  of  faith — that  has  been  done  in  the  early 
part  of  the  Epistle ;  but  to  prove  that  the  method  of  faith  was  one 
which,  for  several  reasons,  should  not  have  been  ignored  and  left 
on  one  side  by  the  Jews. 

7.  ^,  Ti's  KarapriaeTOi  .  .  .  dfayayeir :  *  nor  is  it  necessary  to 
search  the  depth,  since  Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead.'  St.  Paul 
substitutes  ris  Kara^rja-tTcu  tls  r^v  aiivaaov  for  the  more  ordinary  rU 

btair(pa<TH   ^»av   (It   rb   iripav  rrfs    6n\arr(Tr]i,  both    becaUSe    it    makes   a 

more  suitable  contrast  to  the  first  part  of  the  sentence,  and  because 
it  harmonizes  better  with  the  figurative  meaning  he  wishes  to  draw 
from  it.  a^vaaot  in  the  O.  T.  meant  originally  the  '  deep  sea,'  *  the 
great  deep'  or  'the  depths  of  the  sea,'  Ps.  cvi  (cvii),  26  dva^ai- 

vovaiv  tas  tS>p  oipaviov,  xal  KaTo^aivoviriv  twr  tS>v  d^vatrov,  and  the  deep 

places  of  the  earth,  Ps.  Ixx  (Ixxi).  ao  kuI  (k  t«v  a,iJi)<ro-wi»  r^r  y^s 
itaKtv  avriyayit  fu,  and  SO  had  come  to  mean  Tartarus  or  the  Lower 
World;  t6v  8«  raprapov  r^r  d/Svcro-ov  Job.  xli.  23,  where  the  reference 
to  rdprapot  is  due  to  the  LXX ;  cf.  Eur.  Phoen.  1632  (1605)  '.iprapot) 
a0va<ra  xoc^ra.  Elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  it  is  so  used  of  the  abode 
of  demons  (Luke  viii.  31)  and  the  place  of  torment  (Rev.  ix.  i). 
This  double  association  of  the  word  made  it  suitable  for  St.  Paul's 
purpose;  it  kept  up  the  antithesis  of  the  original,  and  it  also 
enabled  him  to  apply  the  passage  figuratively  to  the  Resurrection  of 
Christ  after  His  human  soul  had  gone  down  into  Hades. 

On  the  descensus  ad  inferos,  which  is  here  referred  to  in  indefinite 
and  untechnical  language,  cf.  Acts  ii.  27  ;  i  Peter  iii.  19  ;  iv.  6;  and 
Lft.  on  Ign.  Magn.  ix  ;  see  also  Swete,  Apost. -creed,  p.  57  ff. 

8.  rd  ^^fio  Tiis  vioTcws.  '  The  message,  the  subject  of  which  is 
faith ' ;  vians  does  not  mean  '  the  faith,'  i.  e.  '  the  Gospel  message  ' 
(Oltramare),  but,  as  elsewhere  in  this  chapter,  faith  as  the  principle 
of  righteousness.  Nor  does  the  phrase  mean  the  Gospel  message 
which  appeals  to  faith  in  man  (Lid.),  but  the  Gospel  which  preaches 
faith,  cC  X.  17.  On  pr^yua  cf.  I  Peter  i.  25  r6  dc  pr\pja.  Kvpiov  lUvti 
tls  riv  alwva.     rovro  de  tan  rd  prjfjut  ro  tvayytXiadtv  tls  vfuis. 

t  Ki)pu(rao|jicK.  This  gives  the  reason  why  the  new  way  of 
righteousness  is  easy  to  attain,  being  as  it  is  brought  home  to  every 
one,  and  suggests  a  thought  which  is  worked  out  more  fully  in 
ver.  14  f. 

In  what  sense  does  St  Paul  use  the  O.  T.  in  w.  6-8  i  The 
diflBculty  is  this.  In  the  O.  T.  the  words  are  used  by  Moses  of 
the  Law :  how  can  St.  Paul  use  them  of  the  Gospel  as  against  the 
Law? 


X.8.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  289 

The  following  considerations  will  suggest  the  answer  to  be  given . 

(i)  The  context  of  the  passage  shows  that  there  is  no  stress 
laid  on  the  fact  that  the  O.  T.  is  being  quoted.  The  object  of  the 
argument  is  to  describe  the  characteristics  of  tiKauxrivt}  «  maretitSf 
not  to  show  how  it  can  be  proved  from  the  O.  T. 

(a)  The  Apostle  carefully  and  pointedly  avoids  appealing  to 
Scripture,  altering  his  mode  of  citation  from  that  employed  in  the 
previous  verse.  Mosen  non  citat,  quia  sensum  Mosis  non  sequitur^ 
sed  tantum  ab  illo  verba  mutuatur,  Vatablus,  ap.  Crit.  Sacr.  ad  he. 

(3)  The  quotation  is  singularly  inexact.  An  ordinary  reader 
fairly  well  acquainted  with  the  O.  T.  would  feel  that  the  language 
had  a  familiar  ring,  but  could  not  count  it  as  a  quotation. 

(4)  The  words  had  certainly  become  proverbial,  and  many 
instances  of  them  so  used  have  been  quoted.  Philo,  Quod  omn. 
prob.  lib.  §  10  (quoted  by  Gifford),  'And  yet  what  need  is  there 
either  of  long  journeys  over  the  land,  or  of  long  voyages  for  the 
sake  of  investigating  and  seeking  out  virtue,  the  roots  of  which  the 
Creator  has  laid  not  at  any  great  distance,  but  so  near,  as  the  wise 
law-giver  of  the  Jews  says,  *'  They  are  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy 
heart,  and  in  thy  hands,"  intimating  by  these  figurative  expressions 
the  words  and  actions  and  designs  of  men  ? '  Bava  Mezia,  f.  94.  i 
(quoted  by  Wetstein)  Si  quis  dixerit  mulieri.  Si  adscenderis  in 
firmamtntum,  out  descenderis  in  afytsum,  eris  mihi  desponsata,  haec 
conditio frustranea  est ;  4  Ezra  iv.  8  dicebas  mihi fortas sis :  In  abys^ 
sum  non  descendi,  neque  in  infermim  adhuc,  neque  in  coelis  unquam 
ascendi',  Banich  iii.  29,  30  t«  avi^rj  els  rov  olpavov  <al  f\a(3ev  avTTjv, 
Koi  KaTf^'i^a<T(v  avTr]v  eK  twi/  rf^fXwvJ   Tis  dif^rj  nipav  rrjs  dahdaoTji   Koi 

ftpev  avrfjv  (of  Wisdom) ;  Jubilees  xxiv.  32  '  For  even  if  he  had 
ascended  to  heaven,  they  would  bring  him  down  from  there  .  .  . 
and  even  if  he  descends  into  She61,  there  too  shall  his  judgement 
be  great ' ;  cp.  also  Amos  ix.  a. 

(5)  St  Paul  certainly  elsewhere  uses  the  words  of  Scripture  in 
order  to  express  his  meaning  in  familiar  language,  cf.  ver.  18  ;  xi.  i. 

For  these  reasons  it  seems  probable  that  here  the  Apostle  does 
not  intend  to  base  any  argument  on  the  quotation  from  the  O.  T., 
bat  only  selects  the  language  as  being  familiar,  suitable,  and  pro- 
verbial, in  order  to  express  what  he  wishes  to  say. 

It  is  not  necessary  therefore  to  consider  that  St.  Paul  is  interpret- 
ing the  passage  of  Christ  by  Rabbinical  methods  (with  Mey.  Lid. 
and  others),  nor  to  see  in  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  a  prophecy 
of  the  Gospel  (Fri.)  or  a  reference  to  the  Messiah,  which  is  certainly 
not  the  primary  meaning.  But  when  we  have  once  realized  that  no 
argument  is  based  on  the  use  of  the  O.  T.,  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  use  of  its  language  is  without  motive.  Not  only  has  it  a 
great  rhetorical  value,  as  Chrysostom  sees  with  an  orator's  instinct : 
*  he  uses  the  words  which  are  found  in  the  O.  T.,  being  always  at 


A^  EPISTLE   TO   THE   ROMANS  [Z.  S>1% 

pains  to  keep  quite  clear  of  the  charges  of  love  of  novelties  and  ot 
opposition  to  it';  but  also  there  is  to  St  Paul  a  correspondence 
between  ihe  O.  T.  and  N,  T. :  the  true  creed  is  simple  whether 
Law  on  its  spiritual  side  or  Gospel  (cf.  Aug.  Dt  Natura  tt  Gratia, 

§83) 

0.  3ti  lh.v  AfioXoyrjcrgs  «,t.X.      This  verse  corresponds  to  and 

applies  the  preceding  verse.  The  subject  of  the  f>r\\ux  which  is 
preached  by  the  Apostles  is  the  person  of  Christ  and  the  truth 
of  His  Resurrection.  Kvpwt  refers  to  ver.  6,  the  Resurrection 
(or*  6  ©for  avTov  rjytiptp  ik  vtKpcoy)  to  ver.  7*  The  power  of  Christ 
lies  in  these  two  facts,  namely  His  Incarnation  and  His  Resur- 
rection, His  Divine  nature  and  His  triumph  over  death.  What 
is  demanded  of  a  Christian  is  the  outward  confession  and  the 
inward  belief  in  Him,  and  these  sum  up  the  conditions  necessary 
for  salvadon. 

The  ordinaiy  reading  in  this  rtne  is  Idp  ii)tcKoy^<r^  h  rp  0r6iiarl  «o* 

Kvpiov  'lT]<Tovy,  for  which  WH.  substitute  t6  ^tui  tv  r^  arSftaTi  9ov  8ti 
Kvpioi  'Irjaovs.  r6  pfifia  has  the  authority  of  B  71,  Clem.-Alex.  and  perhaps 
Cyril,  on  K.  'I.  of  B,  Boh.,  Clem.-Alex.  and  Cyril  3/3.  The  agreement  in 
the  one  case  of  B  and  Boh.,  in  the  other  of  B  and  Clem.-Alex.  against  nearly 
all  the  other  authorities  is  noticeable. 

10.  KapSia  ydp  iriorcucTai  k.t.X.  St.  Patil  explains  and  brings 
out  more  fully  the  application  of  the  words  he  has  last  quoted.  The 
beginning  of  the  Christian  life  has  two  sides :  internally  it  is  the 
change  of  heart  which  faith  implies  ;  this  leads  to  righteousness, 
the  position  of  acceptance  before  God:  externally  it  implies  the 
*  confession  of  Christ  crucified '  which  is  made  in  baptism,  and  this 
puts  a  man  into  the  path  by  which  in  the  end  he  attains  salvation ; 
he  becomes  <r«fd/xfi>of. 

11.  X^ci  Y^p  ^  YP(^<t>^  k.tX.  Quoted  from  Is.  xxviii.  i6  (see 
above,  ix.  33)  with  the  addition  of  iras  to  bring  out  the  point  on 
»rhich  emphasis  is  to  be  laid.  St.  Paul  introduces  a  proof  from 
Scripture  of  the  statement  made  in  the  previous  verse  that  faith  is 
the  condition  of  salvation,  and  at  the  same  dme  makes  it  the 
occasion  of  introducing  the  second  point  in  the  argument,  namely, 
the  universal  character  of  this  new  method  of  obtaining  righteous- 
ness. 

In  ver.  4  he  has  explained  that  the  old  system  of  dixatoavi^  in 
v6fiov  has  been  done  away  with  in  Christ  to  make  way  for  a  new 
one  which  has  two  characteristics :  (i)  that  it  is  </c  ntcrrcuc:  this  has 
been  treated  in  w.  5-10;  (a)  that  it  is  universal:  this  he  now 
proceeds  to  develope. 

12.  ou  yi^P  ^(^>^  SiaoToXf)  'louSaiou  tc  xal  *EXXi)ko$.  St  Paul 
first  explains  the  meaning  of  this  statement,  namely,  the  imiversal 
character  of  the  Gospel,  by  making  it  clear  that  it  is  the  sole 
method  for  Jews  as  well  as  for  Gentiles.   This  was  both  •  warning 


Z.  12,  18.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF   ISRAEL  SOI 

and  a  consolation  for  the  Jews.  A  warning  if  they  thought  that, 
in  spite  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  they  might  seek  salvation 
in  their  own  way ;  a  consolation  it  once  they  realized  the  burden 
of  the  law  and  that  they  might  be  freed  from  it.  The  Jews  have 
in  this  relation  no  special  privileges  (cf.  i.  i6;  ii.  9,  10;  iii.  9; 
I  Cor.  i.  34;  xii.  13;  Gal.  iii.  28;  Col.  iii.  11);  they  must  obtain 
iiKoioavvtf  by  the  same  methods  and  on  the  same  conditions  as  the 
Gentile*.  This  St.  Paul  has  already  proved  on  the  ground  that 
they  equally  with  the  Gentiles  have  sinned  (iii.  23).  He  now 
deduces  it  from  the  nature  and  the  work  of  the  Lord. 

6  ydp  auT^  Kupios  Tt&vTfav,  cf.  I  Cor.  xii.  5.  This  gives  the 
reason  for  the  similarity  of  method  for  all  alike :  '  it  is  the  same 
Lord  who  redeemed  all  mankind  alike,  and  conferred  upon  all  alike 
such  wealth  of  spiritual  blessings.'  It  is  better  to  take  Ki^ptoy  navrav 
as  predicate  for  it  contains  the  point  of  the  sentence,  '  The  same 
Lord  is  Lord  of  all '  (so  the  RV.). 

Kupios  must  clearly  refer  to  Christ,  cf.  w.  9,  11.  He  is  called 
iLvpioi  ndvTiov  Acts  X.  36,  and  cf.  ix.  5,  and  Phil.  ii.  10,  11. 

irXouTWK :    '  abounding  in   spiritual  wealth,'  cf  esp.  Eph.  iii.  8 

Tois  tdvtaw  rvayyfXiaaaBai  to  dve^i^vlaarov  nXoirrot  rov  Xpiarov, 

rods  ^mxaXoufi^Kous  afiitSc.  eniKa\tia-6ai  t6v  Kvpiov,  or  more  cor- 
rectly eiriKaktiaQm  rh  Svofia  rov  Kvpiov,  is  the  habitual  LXX  transla- 
tion of  a  common  Hebrew  formula.  From  the  habit  of  beginning 
addresses  to  a  deity  by  mentioning  his  name,  it  became  a  tech- 
nical expression  for  the  suppliant  to  a  god,  and  a  designation 
of  his  worshippers.  Hence  the  Israelites  were  01  eirucdkovfifvoi  tow 
Kvpiof  or  TO  ovofM  Kvpiov.  They  were  in  fact  specially  distinguished 
as  the  worshippers  of  Jehovah.  It  becomes  therefore  very  signifi- 
cant when  we  find  just  this  expression  used  of  the  Christians  as 
the  worshippers  of  Christ,  6  Kvpiot,  in  order  to  designate  them  as 
aptart  from  all  others,  cf.  i  Cor.  i.  a  <rvv  naari  toU  firiKoKoviiivois  rh 
itiofia  rov  Kvpiov  tfpwv  'irjtrov  Xpurrov.  There  is  a  treatise  on  the 
subject  by  A.  Seeberg,  Ih'e  Anbetung  dex  Herrn  bet  Paulus,  Riga, 
1 891,  see  especially  pp.  38,  43-46. 

13.  iras  Y^P  ^  ^*  ^mKaX^<n|Tai.  St.  Fan!  sums  up  and  clenches 
his  argument  by  the  quotation  of  a  well-known  passage  of  Scripture, 
Joel  ii.  32  (the  quotation  agrees  with  both  the  LXX  and  the  Hebrew 
texts).  The  original  passage  refers  to  the  prophetic  conception  of 
the  '  day  of  the  Lord.'  '  The  sun  shall  be  turned  into  darkness, 
and  the  moon  into  blood,  before  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the 
Lord  come.'  At  that  time  *  whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord '  shall  be  saved.  This  salvation  {autdr^afrcu,  cf.  ver.  9  awOfjo^, 
10  (T<oTt)piav),  the  Jewish  expectation  of  safety  in  the  Messianic 
kingdom  when  the  end  comes,  is  used  of  that  Christian  salvation 
which  is  the  spiritual  fulfilment  of  Jewish  prophecy. 

Kwpiow.    The  term  Kvpwt  is  applied  to  Christ  by  St.  Paul  ia 


SI93  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [X  14-21. 

quotations  from  the  O.  T.  in  »  Thess.  i.  9;  i  Cor.  iL  16;  x.  »i, 

a6  ;  a  Cor.  iii.  16,  and  probably  in  other  passages. 

This  quotation,  besides  concluding  the  argument  of  w.  1-13, 
suggests  the  thought  which  is  the  transition  to  the  next  point  dis- 
cussed— the  opportunities  offered  to  all  of  hearing  this  message. 


ISRAEL'S  XJITEELIEV  NOT  EXCUSED  BY  WAIST  OW 
OPPORTUMITY. 

X.  14-21.  This  unbelief  on  the  part  of  Israel  was  not 
owing  to  want  of  knowledge.  Fully  accredited  messengers — 
such  a  body  as  is  necessary  for  preaching  and  for  faith — 
have  announced  the  Gospel.  TJure  is  no  land  but  has  heard 
the  voices  of  the  Evangelical  preachers  (w.  14-18).  Nof 
was  it  owing  to  want  of  understanding.  Their  own  Prophets 
warned  them  that  it  was  through  disobedience  that  they 
would  reject  God's  message  (vv.  19-ai). 

"All  then  that  is  required  for  salvation  is  sincerely  and  genuinely 
to  call  on  the  Lord.  But  there  are  conditions  preliminary  to  this 
which  are  necessary ;  perhaps  it  may  be  urged,  that  these  have  not 
been  fulfilled.  Let  us  consider  what  these  conditions  are.  If  a  man 
is  to  call  on  Jesus  he  must  have  faith  in  Him  ;  to  obtain  faith  it  is 
necessary  that  he  must  hear  the  call;  that  again  implies  that 
heralds  must  have  been  sent  forth  to  proclaim  this  call.  **And 
heralds  imply  a  commission.  Have  these  conditions  been  fulfilled  ? 
Yes.  Duly  authorized  messengers  have  preached  the  Gospel.  The 
fact  may  be  stated  in  the  words  of  the  Prophet  Isaiah  (Iii.  7)  de- 
scribing the  welcome  approach  of  the  messengers  who  bring  news 
of  the  return  from  captivity — that  great  type  of  the  other,  Messianic, 
Deliverance :  '  How  beautiful  are  the  feet  of  them  that  preach  good 
tidings.' 

*•  But  it  may  be  urged,  In  spite  of  this,  all  did  not  give  k  a 
patient  and  submissive  hearing.  This  does  not  imply  that  the 
message  nas  noC  been  given.  In  fact  Isaiah  in  the  same  passage 
in  which  he  foretold  the  Apostolic  message,  spoke  also  of  the  in- 
credulity with  which  the  message  is  received  (liii.  i)  '  Lord,  who 
hath  believed  our  message  ? '  "  Which  incidentally  confirms  what 
we  were  saying  a  moment  ago :  Faith  can  only  come  from  the 


X.  14-2L]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  S93 

message  heard,  and  the  message  heard  implies  the  message  sent — 
the  message,  that  is,  about  Christ. 

*•  But  it  may  be  alleged :  We  grant  it  was  preached,  but  that 
does  not  prove  that  Israel  heard  it.  Is  that  possible,  when  in  the 
words  of  Psalm  xix  *  the  voices  of  God's  messengers  went  forth 
into  all  lands,  and  their  words  to  the  limits  of  the  known  world  ? ' 

^*  Or  another  excuse :  '  Israel  heard  but  did  not  understand.' 
Can  you  say  that  of  Israel  ?  From  the  very  beginning  of  its  history 
a  long  succession  of  its  Prophets  foretold  the  Divine  scheme. 
Moses,  to  begin  with,  wrote  (Deut.  xxxii.  21)  'I  will  excite  you 
to  jealousy  at  a  nation  outside  the  pale,  that  does  not  count  as  a 
nation  at  alL  I  will  rouse  your  anger  at  seeing  yourselves  out- 
stripped by  a  nation  whom  you  regard  as  possessing  no  intelligence 
for  the  things  of  religion.'  "•  Isaiah  too  was  full  of  boldness.  In 
the  face  of  his  fellow-countrymen  he  asserted  (Ixv.  i)  that  God's 
mercies  should  be  gained  by  those  who  had  not  striven  after  them 
(the  Gentiles).  "  And  then  he  turns  round  to  Israel  and  says  that 
although  God  had  never  ceased  stretching  out  His  arms  to  them 
with  all  the  tenderness  of  a  mother,  they  had  received  His  call  with 
disobedience,  and  His  message  with  criticism  and  contradiction. 
The  Jews  have  fallen,  not  because  of  God's  unfaithfulness  or  in- 
justice, not  because  of  want  of  opportunity,  but  because  they  are  a 
rebellious  people — a  people  who  refuse  to  be  taught,  who  choose 
their  own  way,  who  cleave  to  that  way  in  spite  of  every  warning 
and  of  every  message. 

14-21.  This  section  seems  to  be  arranged  on  the  plan  of  sug- 
gesting a  series  of  diflSculties,  and  giving  short  decisive  answers  to 
each  :  (i)  '  But  how  can  men  believe  the  Gospel  unless  it  has  been 
fully  preached ?  '(v.  14).  Answer.  '  It  has  been  preached  as  Isaiah 
foretold'  (ver.  15).  (a)  'Yet,  all  have  not  accepted  it'  (ver.  16). 
Answer.  '  That  does  not  prove  that  it  was  not  preached.  Isaiah 
foretold  also  this  neglect  of  the  message'  (vv.  16,  17).  (3)  'But 
perhaps  the  Jews  did  not  hear'  (v.  18),  Answer.  'Impossible. 
The  Gospel  has  been  preached  everywhere.'  (4)  'Bui  perhaps 
they  did  not  understand'  (ver.  19).  Answer.  'That  again  is  im- 
possible. The  Gentiles,  a  people  without  any  real  knowledge, 
have  understood.  The  real  fact  is  they  were  a  disobedient,  self- 
willed  people.'  The  object  is  to  fix  the  guilt  of  the  Jews  by  re* 
moving  every  defence  which  might  be  made  on  the  ground  of  wani 
of  opportunitiea. 


S94  EPISVLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [X.  14,  If. 

'Th«  passage  which  follows  (14-31)  b  io  style  one  of  the  most  obscnn 

portions  of  the  Epistle.'  This  statement  of  Jowctt's  is  hardly  exaggerated 
'  The  obscurity  arises/  as  he  proceeds  to  point  out,  '  from  the  argument 
being  founded  on  passages  of  the  Old  Testament.'  These  are  quoted  without 
explanation,  and  without  their  relation  to  the  argument  being  clearly 
brought  out.  The  first  difficulty  is  to  know  where  to  make  a  division  in 
the  chapter.  Some  put  it  after  Ter.  11  (so  Go.)  making  rr.  ii-ai  a  prod 
of  the  extension  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles;  some  after  ver.  13  (Chrys. 
Weiss,  Oltr.  Gif.) ;  some  after  ver.  15  (Lid.  WH.  Lips.).  The  decision  ol 
the  question  will  always  depend  on  the  opinion  formed  of  the  drift  of  the 
passage,  but  we  are  not  without  structural  assistance.  It  may  be  noticed 
throughout  these  chapters  that  each  succeeding  paragraph  is  introduced  by 
a  question  with  the  particle  ovy :  so  ix.  14  W  oZv  tpoC/i«i';  30;  xi.  i,  11. 
And  this  seems  to  arise  from  the  meaning  of  the  particle  :  it  sums  up  the 
conclusion  of  the  preceding  paragraph  as  an  introduction  to  a  further  step  in 
the  argument  This  meaning  will  exactly  suit  the  passage  under  consideration. 
'  The  condition  of  salvation  is  to  call  on  the  Lord ' — that  is  the  conclusion 
of  the  last  section  :  then  the  Apostle  goes  on,  '  if  this  be  so,  what  then  (ovi') 
are  the  conditions  necessary  for  attaining  it,  and  hare  they  been  fulfilled?* 
the  words  forming  a  suitable  introduction  to  the  next  stage  in  the  argument. 
This  use  of  ovv  to  introduce  a  new  paragraph  is  very  common  in  St.  Paul. 
See  especially  Rom.  t.  i,  vi.  i,  xii.  i  ;  Eph.  iv.  I ;  I  "Tim.  iL  i ;  a  Tim.  u.  I, 
besides  other  less  striking  instances.  It  may  be  noticed  that  it  is  not  easy 
to  understand  the  principle  on  which  WH.  have  divided  the  text  of  these 
chapters,  making  no  break  at  all  at  ix.  29,  beginning  a  new  paragraph  at 
chap.  X,  making  a  break  here  at  ver.  15,  making  only  a  slight  break  at 
chap,  xi,  and  starting  a  new  paragraph  at  Tcr.  IJ  of  that  chapter  at  what 
is  really  only  a  parenthetical  remark. 

X.  14,  16.  The  main  difficulty  of  these  verses  centres  round  two 
points :  With  what  object  are  they  introduced  ?  And  what  is  the 
quotation  from  Isaiah  intended  to  prove  ? 

I.  One  main  Une  of  interpretation,  following  Calvin,  considers 
that  the  words  are  introduced  to  justify  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
to  the  Geniiles ;  in  fact  to  support  the  nas  of  the  previous  verse. 
God  must  have  intended  His  Gospel  to  go  to  the  heathen,  for  a  duly 
commissioned  ministry  (and  St.  Paul  is  thinking  of  himself)  has 
been  sent  out  to  preach  it.  The  quotation  then  follows  as  a  justi- 
fication from  prophecy  of  the  ministry  to  the  Gentiles.  The  possi- 
bility of  adopting  such  an  interpretation  must  depend  partly  on  the 
view  taken  of  the  argument  of  the  whole  chapter  (see  the  (  -ral 
Discussion  at  the  end),  but  in  any  case  tHe  logical  connexion  ii 
wrong.  If  that  were  what  St.  Paul  had  intended  to  say,  he  must  have 
written,  '  Salvation  is  intended  for  Gentile  as  well  as  Jew,  for  God 
has  commissioned  His  ministers  to  preach  to  them  :  a  commission 
implies  preaching,  preaching  implies  faith,  faith  implies  worship, 
and  worship  salvation.  The  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  is  the 
necessary  result  of  the  existence  of  an  apostolate  of  the  Gentiles.' 
It  will  be  seen  that  St.  Paul  puts  the  argument  exactly  in  the 
opposite  way,  in  a  manner  in  fact  in  which  he  could  never  prove 
this  conclusion. 

a.   Roman  Catholic  commentatora,  followed  by  Liddon   and 


Z.  14.J  THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  it^^ 

Gore,  consider  that  the  words  are  introduced  in  order  to  justify  an 
apostolic  or  authorized  ministry.  But  this  is  to  introduce  into  the 
passage  an  idea  which  is  quite  alien  to  it,  and  which  is  unnecessary 
for  the  argument 

3.  The  right  interpretation  of  the  whole  of  this  paragraph  seems  to 
be  that  of  Chrysostom.  The  Jews,  it  has  been  shown,  have  neglected 
God's  method  of  obtaining  righteousness;  but  in  order,  as  he  desires, 
to  convict  them  of  guilt  in  this  neglect,  St.  Paul  must  show  that  they 
have  had  the  opportunity  of  knowing  about  it,  that  their  ignorance 
{ayvoovrrts  ver.  3)  is  culpable.  He  therefore  begins  by  asking  what 
are  the  conditions  necessary  for  '  calling  upon  the  Lord  ? '  and  then 
shows  that  these  conditions  have  been  fulfilled.  There  may  still 
be  some  question  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  quotation,  (i)  It  may 
be  introduced  merely  as  corroborative  of  the  last  chain  in  the 
argument  (so  most  commentators).  This  need  of  a  commissioned 
ministry  corresponds  to  the  joy  and  delight  experienced  when  they 
arrive.  Or  better,  (2)  it  may  be  looked  upon  as  stating  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  condidons.  '  Yes,  and  they  have  come,  a  fact  that  no 
one  can  fail  to  recognize,  and  which  was  foretold  by  the  Prophet 
Isaiah.'  So  Chrysostom,  who  sums  up  the  passage  thus :  '  If  the 
being  saved,  then,  came  of  calling  upon  Him,  and  calling  upon 
Him  from  believing,  and  believing  from  hearing,  and  hearing  from 
preaching,  and  preaching  from  being  sent,  and  if  they  were  sent, 
and  did  preach,  and  the  prophet  went  round  with  them  to  point 
them  out,  and  proclaim  them,  and  say  that  these  were  they  whom 
they  showed  of  so  many  ages  ago,  whose  feet  even  they  praised 
because  of  the  matter  of  their  preaching ;  then  it  is  quite  clear  that 
the  not  believing  was  their  own  fault  only.  And  that  because 
God's  part  had  been  fulfilled  completely.' 

14.  vws  oSv  iTriKoKiaiatrrai.  The  word  01%,  as  often  in  St.  Paul, 
marks  a  stage  in  the  argument.  'We  have  discovered  the  new 
system  of  salvation:  what  conditions  are  necessary  for  its  acceptance?' 
"The  question  is  not  the  objection  of  an  adversary,  nor  merely 
rhetorical,  but  rather  deliberative  (see  Burton,  Af.  and  T.  §  169): 
hence  the  subjunctive  (see  below)  is  more  suitable  than  the  Iutu«e 
which  we  find  in  ix.  30.  The  subject  of  «7rt»taX«cra)»^tu  is  implied  in 
w.  13,  13,  'those  who  would  seek  this  new  method  of  salvation  by 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.' 

In  this  seriet  of  qnestioni  in  tt.  14,  15  the  MSS.  vuy  between  the  stib- 
jnnctive  and  the  fatnre.  Generally  the  authority  for  th«  subjunctive  strongly 
preponderates :  inMaKtatovrax.  K  A  B  D  E  F  G,  -niarfuaoitnv  K  B  D  E  F  G  P, 
itr)pv((u<Ttv  KABDEKLP.  In  the  case  of  oKovowatv  there  is  a  double 
Tariation.  K"  A*  (A  la/ei )  B  and  some  minuscules  read  dKovatuaiv ;  K  D  E  F 
G  K  P  and  gome  minuscules  read  Ajtovaovrai ;  L  etc.,  Clem.- Alex.  Ath. 
Chrys.  tdJ.  Theodrt.  and  theTR.  read  dieovaovffi.  Here  however  the  double 
vmriant  makes  the  sobjunctive  almost  certain.  Although  the  form  aKovoovai 
h  possible  ia  N.T.  Greek,  it  is  most  improbable  that  it  should  have  arisen  om 


89^  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [X.  14,  IS. 

a  corrcption  from  Sutoifforrtu,  tod  it  it  too  weakly  sappoited  to  be  tha 
correct  reading.  iKoiiaotatv,  which  will  explain  both  variants  and  hannoniiei 
with  the  ottier  tubjnnctivei,  is  therefore  correct.  B  here  alone  among  the 
leading  MSS.  is  correct  thronghoot. 

ou  ouK  {jKouaay :  '  how  can  they  believe  on  Him  whom  they 
have  not  heard  preaching  ? '  ov  is  for  «ir  tovtop  oS  :  and  as  oKovtiv 
riyos  means  not  '  to  hear  of  some  one/  but  *  to  hear  some  one 
preaching  or  speaking/  it  must  be  so  translated,  and  what  follows 
must  be  interpreted  by  assuming  that  the  preaching  of  Christ's 
messengers  is  identical  with  the  preaching  of  Christ  Himself.  This 
interpretation  (that  of  Mey.  and  Gif,),  although  not  without  diflS- 
culties,  is  probably  better  than  either  of  the  other  solutions  proposed. 
It  is  suggested  that  ov  may  be  for  ov,  and  the  passage  is  translated 
'of  whom  they  have  not  heard';  but  only  a  few  instances  of  this 
usage  are  quoted,  and  they  seem  to  be  all  early  and  poetical. 
The  interpretation  of  Weiss,  oS  =  where,  completely  breaks  the 
continuity  of  the  sentences. 

15.  KT|pu|(<xriK.  The  nominative  is  o2  KripCaaovrtt,  which  is  implied 

in    KTJpvatTOVTOS. 

By  means  of  this  series  of  questions  St  Paul  works  out  the 

conditions  necessary  for  salvation  back  to  their  starting-point. 
Salvation  is  gained  by  calling  on  the  Lord;  this  implies  faith. 
Faith  is  only  possible  with  knowledge.  Knowledge  implies  an 
instructor  or  preacher.  A  preacher  implies  a  commission.  If 
therefore  salvation  is  to  be  made  possible  for  everyone,  there  must 
have  been  men  sent  out  with  a  commission  to  preach  it. 

Kadus  Y^YP'^'""'''^^'  '^  <i)paioi  ol  ircSSes  twk  cuayYcXi^oix^Kwr  dyaOd. 
By  introducing  this  quotation  St.  Paul  implies  that  the  commis- 
sioned messengers  have  been  sent,  and  the  conditions  therefore 
necessary  for  salvation  have  been  fulfilled.  *  Yes,  and  they  have 
been  sent :  the  prophet's  words  are  true  describing  the  glorious 
character  of  the  Evangelical  preachers.' 

The  quotation  is  taken  from  Isaiah  lii.  7,  and  resembles  the 
Hebrew  more  closely  than  our  present  LXX  text.  In  the  original 
it  describes  the  messengers  who  carry  abroad  the  glad  tidings 
of  the  restoration  from  captivity.  But  the  whole  of  this  section  of 
Isaiah  was  felt  by  the  Christians  to  be  full  of  Messianic  import,  and 
this  verse  was  used  by  the  Rabbis  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
(see  the  references  given  by  Schoettgen,  Ilor.  Heb.  ii.  179).  St. 
Paul  quotes  it  because  he  wishes  to  describe  in  O.  T.  language  the 
fact  which  will  be  recognized  as  true  when  stated,  and  to  show 
that  these  facts  are  in  accordance  with  the  Divine  method.  *  St. 
Paul  applies  the  exclamation  to  the  appearance  of  the  Apostles  of 
Christ  upon  the  scene  of  history.  Their  feet  are  wpaloi  in  his  eyes, 
as  they  announce  the  end  of  the  captivity  of  sin,  and  publish  «tp^»^ 
(Kph.  vL  15  ro  fMiyycXioi'  ri^r  ti(ii\vr\s)  made  by  Clirist,  through  the 


X.  U,  16.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISKAKL  S97 

blood  of  His  Cross,  between  God  and  man,  between  earth  and 
heaven  (2  Cor.  v.  18-20;  £ph.  ii.  17;  Col.  i.  20);  and  all  the 
blessings  of  goodness  {rh  dya6a)  which  God  in  Christ  bestows  on 
the  Redeemed,  especially  diKauxrvvt).'     Liddon. 

There  are  two  critical  question*  in  connexion  with  this  qnotation :  the 
leading  of  the  Greelc  text  and  its  relation  to  the  Hebrew  and  to  the  LXX. 

(1)  The  RV.  reads  «»  ujpdtoi  ol  w(55<j  rSiv  evayye\i(o).iivcuv  07060  :  the 
TR.  inserts  rolr  tvay.  tlprjvTjy  after  ol  ir<55«i.  The  balance  of  authority  is 
•trongly  in  favour  of  the  RV.  The  clause  is  omitted  by  N  A  B  C  minusc. 
pauc.  Aegyptt.  (Boh.  Sah.)  Aeth.,  Clem. -Alex.  Orig.  and  Orig.-lat. :  it  is  in- 
serted byDEFGKLP  &c.,  Vulg.  Syrr.  (Pesh.  Hard.)  Arm.  Goth.,  Chrys. 
Iren.-lat.  Hil.  «/.  The  natural  explanation  is  that  the  insertion  has  been 
made  that  the  citation  may  correspond  more  accurately  to  the  LXX. 
This  end  is  not  indeed  altogether  attained,  for  the  LXX  reads  ikKor\v  eifnjvrjt, 
and  the  omission  might  have  arisen  from  Homoeoteleuton ;  but  these  con- 
siderations can  hardly  outweigh  the  clear  preponderance  of  authority. 

There  is  a  somewhat  similar  difficulty  about  a  second  minor  variation. 
The  RV.  reads  dyaOi  with  ABCDEFGP,  Orig.  Eus.  Jo.-Damasc,  the 
TR.  has  Tci  dyaOi  with  K  etc.  Clem. -Alex.  Chrys.  and  most  later  authorities. 
Here  the  LXX  omits  the  article,  and  it  is  difficult  quite  to  see  why  it  should 
have  been  inserted  by  a  corrector ;  whereas  if  it  had  formed  part  of  the 
"".ginal  text  he  could  quite  naturally  have  omitted  it 

(a)  The  LXX  translation  is  here  very  inexact,  niptifu  its  &pa  kwl  tS)v 
6pio/v,  on  irdSes  tvayytXi^ofitvov  clko^v  dprjvrji,  &s  evayyt\t^6fi(vos  &ya6i. 
St.  Paul's  words  approach  much  more  nearly  to  the  Hebrew  (RV.)  *  How 
beautiful  upon  the  mountains  are  the  feet  of  him  that  bringeth  good  tidings, 
that  pnblisheth  peace,  that  bringeth  good  tidings  of  good,  that  publisheth 
salvation.'  He  shortens  the  quotation,  makes  it  plural  instead  of  singular 
to  suit  his  purpose,  and  omits  the  words  <  upon  the  mountains,'  which  have 
only  a  local  significance. 

16.  dW  ofi  jtdmt.  An  objection  suggested.  '  Yet,  in  spite  of 
the  fact  that  this  message  was  sent,  all  did  not  obey  the  Gospel.' 

ov  navres  is  a  meiOStS ;   cf.  ri  yap  *i  finioTrjaav  TlfCS ;   (iii.  3). 

fiiri^Kouffoi',  like  virtrdyrjcrav  (ver.  3),  Seems  to  imply  the  idea  of 
voluntary  submission:    cf.  vi.  16,  17   8ov\oi  tart  f  imuKovfrt  .  . 

{mrjKovaart  lie  €k  Kapdias  tit  ov  napfbn6r]Tf. 

Tw  efiayycXiu.  The  word  is  of  course  suggested  by  the  quotation 
of  the  previous  verse. 

'Haatas  yap  \iyt\,  11.T.X.  '  But  this  fact  does  not  prove  that  no 
message  had  been  sent ;  it  is  indeed  equally  in  accordance  with 
prophecy,  for  Isaiah,  in  a  passage  immediately  following  that  in 
which  he  describes  the  messengers,  describes  also  the  failure  of 
the  people  to  receive  the  message.'  With  yap  cf.  Matt.  i.  20  ff. 
The  quotation  is  from  the  LXX  of  Is.  liii.  i.  Kupie,  as  Origen 
pointed  out,  does  not  occur  in  the  Hebrew. 

dKoif:  means  (i)  'hearing,'  'the  faculty  by  which  a  thing  is 
heard  ;  (2)  'the  substance  of  what  is  heard,'  *a  report,  message.' 
In  this  verse  it  is  used  in  the  second  meaning,  'who  hath  believed 
our  report?'  In  ver.  17,  it  shades  off  into  the  first,  'faith  comes 
by  hearing.'     It  is  quite  possible  of  course  to  translate  '  report '  or 


29^  JCPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [X  16- la 

'message'  there  also,  but  then  the  connexion  of  idea  with  ver.  i8 

nfj  ovK  TJKovaav  is  obscured. 

It  has  been  questioned  to  whom  St.  Paul  is  referring  in  this  and 
the  preceding  verses — the  Gentiles  or  the  Jews.  The  language  is 
quite  general  and  equally  applicable  to  either,  but  the  whole  drift 
of  the  argument  shows  that  it  is  of  the  Jews  the  Apostle  is  thinking. 
Grotius  makes  w.  14  and  15  the  objection  of  an  opponent  to  which 
St.  Paul  replies  in  ver.  16  ff. 

17.  apa  i?i  Tri<ms.  '  Hence  may  be  inferred  (in  corroboration  of 
what  was  said  above)  that  the  preliminary  condition  necessary  for 
faith  is  to  have  heard,  and  to  have  heard  implies  a  message.'  This 
sentence  is  to  a  certain  extent  parenthetical,  merely  emphasizing 
a  fact  already  stated ;  yet  the  language  leads  us  on  to  the  excuse 
for  unbelief  suggested  in  the  next  verse. 

81A  pi^fiaTos  XpiaxoO :  '  a  message  about  Christ.'  Cf.  ver.  8  t4 
prjfjLa  Tfjs  7ri(TT(a>s  o  KTjpvvaofifv.  St.  Paul  comes  back  to  the  phrase  he 
has  used  before,  and  the  use  of  it  will  remind  his  readers  that  this 
message  has  been  actually  sent 

Xpiarov  is  the  reading  of  KBC  D  E  minust. pane..  Valg.  Sah.  Boh.  Arm. 
Aeth.  Orig.-lat.  2/2,  Ambrst.  Aug.— e«o5  of  K»  AD^'KLP  ml.fUr.,  Syn., 
Clem.-Alex.  Chrys.  Theodrt. 

St.  Paul  has  laid  down  the  conditions  which  make  faith  possible, 
a  Gospel  and  messengers  of  the  Gospel ;  the  language  he  has  used 
reminds  his  readers  that  both  these  have  come.  Yet,  in  spite  of 
this,  the  Jews  have  not  obeyed.  He  now  suggests  two  possible 
excuses. 

18.  dXXA  Xfy«:  'but  it  may  be  said  in  excuse:  It  is  possible 
that  those  whom  you  accuse  of  not  obeying  the  Gospel  message 
have  never  heard  of  it  ? '     On  \i.r)  oi  see  Burton,  M.  and  T.  §  468. 

ficcoukyc :  an  emphatic  corrective,  '  with  a  slight  touch  of  irony' 
(Lid.) ;  cf.  ix.  20. 

CIS  iraaoi'  rf)!'  yi^r  «.t.X.  St.  Paul  expresses  his  meaning  in  words 
borrowed  from  Psalm  xix.  (xviii.)  5,  which  he  cites  word  for  word 
according  to  the  LXX,  but  without  any  mark  of  quotation.  What 
stress  does  he  intend  to  lay  on  the  words?  Does  he  use  them 
for  purely  literary  purposes  to  express  a  well-known  fact?  or  does 
he  also  mean  to  prove  the  fact  by  the  authority  of  the  O.  T. 
which  foretold  it  ? 

I.  Primarily  at  any  rate  St  Paul  wishes  to  express  a  well-known 
fact  in  suitable  language.  *  What  do  you  say  ?  They  have  not 
heard  I  Why  the  whole  world  and  tlie  ends  of  the  earth  have 
heard.  And  have  you,  amongst  whom  the  heralds  abode  such 
a  long  time,  and  of  whose  land  they  were,  not  heard?'     Chrys. 

8.  But  the  language  of  Scripture  is  not  used  without  a  point 
In  tlie  original  Psalm  these  words  describe  how  universally  tb« 


X.  18,  10.]  THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  ^99 

works  of  nature  glorify  God.  By  using  them  St.  Paul  '  compares 
the  universality  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  with  the  universality 
with  which  the  works  of  nature  proclaim  God.'     Gif. 

A  second  difficulty  is  raised  by  older  commentators.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  the  Gospel  had  not  been  preached  everywhere ;  and  some 
writers  have  inverted  this  argument,  and  used  this  text  as  a  proof 
that  even  as  early  as  this  Christianity  had  been  universally  preached. 
But  all  that  St.  Paul  means  to  imply  is  that  it  is  universal  in  its 
character.  Some  there  were  who  might  not  have  heard  it ;  some 
Jews  even  might  be  among  them.  He  is  not  dealing  with  indi- 
viduals. The  fact  remained  true  that,  owing  to  the  universal 
character  of  its  preaching,  those  whose  rejection  of  it  he  is  con- 
sidering had  at  any  rate  as  a  body  had  the  opportunities  of  hearing 
of  it 

19.  dXXd  X^w,  fji)|  *lvpaf)X  ofix  lyru ;  a  second  excuse  is  suggested : 
'surely  it  cannot  be  that  it  was  from  ignorance  that  Israel  failed?' 

(i)  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  somewhat  emphatic  introduction 
of  'ItrpafiXi  It  has  been  suggested  that  it  means  a  change  of 
subject.  That  while  the  former  passage  refers  to  Gentiles,  or 
to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  here  the  writer  at  last  turns  to  Israel  in 
particular.  But  there  has  been  no  hint  that  the  former  passage 
was  dealing  with  the  Gentiles,  and  if  such  a  contrast  had  been 
implied  'lo-paiJX  would  have  had  to  be  put  in  a  much  more  pro- 
minent place,  ntpl  di  ToC  'la-pafjX  Xrya>,  fi^  oiik  eyva ;  The  real  reason 
for  the  introduction  of  the  word  is  that  it  gives  an  answer  to 
the  question,  and  shows  the  untenable  character  of  the  excuse. 
Has  Israel,  Israel  with  its  long  line  of  Prophets,  and  its  religious 
privileges  and  its  Divine  teaching,  acted  in  ignorance?  When 
once  '  Israel '  has  been  used  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  answer. 

(a)  But,  again,  what  is  it  suggested  that  Israel  has  not  known? 
As  the  clause  is  parallel  with  fiff  ovk  ^Kowav,  and  as  no  hint  is  given 
of  any  change,  the  object  must  be  the  same,  namely  p^/xa  Xpia-Tov, 
the  message  concerning  the  Messiah.  All  such  interpretations  as 
the  'calling  of  the  Gentiles'  or  'the  universal  preaching  of  the 
Gospel'  are  outside  the  line  of  argument. 

(3)  But  how  is  this  consistent  with  dyvooivrfs  ver.  3?  The 
contradiction  is  rather  formal  than  real.  It  is  true  Israel's  zeal 
was  not  guided  by  deep  religious  insight,  and  that  they  clung 
blindly  and  ignorantly  to  a  method  which  liad  been  condemned; 
but  this  ignorance  was  culpable :  if  they  did  not  know,  they  might 
have  known.  From  the  very  beginning  of  their  history  their 
whole  line  of  Prophets  had  warned  them  of  the  Divine  plan. 

(4)  The  answer  to  this  question  is  given  in  three  quotations 
from  the  O.  T.  Israel  has  been  warned  that  their  Messiah 
would  be  rejected  by  themselves  and  accepted  by  the  Gentiles. 
They  cannot  plead  that  the  message  was  difficult  to  understand ; 


500  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [Z.  10-91 

even  a  foolish  people  (it  was  foretold)  would  accept  it,  and  tliui 
stir  up  Israel  to  jealousy.  Nor  again  can  they  plead  that  it  was 
difficult  to  find ;  for  Isaiah  with  great  boldness  has  stated  that  men 
who  never  sought  or  asked  for  it  would  find  it.  The  real  reason 
was  that  the  Israelites  are  a  disobedient  and  a  stubborn  people, 
and,  although  God  has  all  day  long  stretched  forth  His  hands  to 
them,  they  will  not  hear  Him. 

vpwTos  MkKrijs.  tidiis  Mtaatjs.  *  Even  u  early  in  Israel's  history  at 
Moses.' 

tfit  irapalT|X(ovM  A|fc&f  k.t.X.  :  taken  from  Dent,  zzxii.  ti  sub- 
stantially according  to  the  LXX  {vfiat  is  substituted  for  airoit).  In 
the  original  the  words  mean  that  as  Israel  has  roused  God's  jealousy 
by  going  after  no-gods,  so  He  will  rouse  Israel's  jealousy  by 
showing  His  mercy  to  those  who  are  no-people. 

20.  'Haatas  ii  diroroXfif.  St.  Paul's  position  in  opposing  the 
prejudices  of  his  countrymen  made  him  feel  the  boldness  of  Isaiah 
in  standing  up  against  the  men  of  his  own  time.  The  citation  is 
from  Isaiah  Ixv.  i  according  to  the  LXX,  the  clauses  of  the 
original  being  inverted.  The  words  in  the  original  refer  to  the 
apostate  Jews.  St.  Paul  applies  them  to  the  Gentiles;  see  on 
ix.  s5,  a6. 

B  D'^  F  G  with  perhaps  Sah.  uid  Goth,  add  h  twiet  bcfen  rott,  a  Western 
reading  which  has  found  its  waj  into  B  (c£  zL  6).  It  doet  mot  occur  ia 
K  AC  D'^'fiLP  etc,  and  many  Fathera. 

21.  irp&s  hk  rhv  'lapa^X  Xfyti  k.t.X.     This  citation  (Is.  Ixv.  •) 

follows  almost  immediaiely  that  quoted  in  ver.  so,  and  like  it 
is  taken  from  the  LXX,  with  only  a  slight  change  in  the  order. 
In  the  original  both  this  verse  and  the  preceding  are  addressed 
to  apostate  Israel ;  St.  Paul  applies  the  first  part  to  the  Gentiles, 
the  latter  part  definitely  to  Israel 


Tke  Argument  of  ix.  30-x.  si :  Human  Rtsponsibilitf. 

We  have  reached  a  new  stage  in  our  argument.  The  first  step 
was  the  vindication  of  God's  faithfulness  and  justice :  the  second 
step  has  been  definitely  to  fix  guilt  on  man.  It  is  clearly  laid 
down  that  the  Jews  have  been  rejected  through  their  own  fault. 
They  chose  the  wrong  method.  When  the  Messiah  came,  instead 
of  accepting  Him,  they  were  offended.  They  did  not  allow  their 
leal  for  God  to  be  controlled  by  a  true  spiritual  knowledge.  And 
the  responsibility  for  this  is  brought  home  to  them.  All  possible 
excuses,  such  as  want  of  opportunity,  insufficient  knowledge, 
inadequate  warning,  are  suggested,  but  rejected.  The  Jews  are 
a  disobedient  people  and  tbejr  have  been  rejected  for  their  dis* 
obedience. 


IX.  80-Z.  21.]    THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  JOl 

Now  it  has  been  argued  that  tach  an  interpretation  is  in- 
consistent with  Chap.  ix.  That  proves  clearly,  it  is  asserted,  that 
grace  comes  to  man,  not  in  answer  to  man's  efforts,  but  in  accord- 
ance with  God's  will.  How  then  can  St.  Paul  go  on  to  prove  that 
the  Jews  are  to  blame  ?  In  order  to  avoid  this  assumed  incon- 
sistency, the  whole  section,  or  at  any  rate  the  final  portion,  has 
been  interpreted  differently:  w.  ii-ai  are  taken  to  defend  the 
Apostolic  ministry  to  the  Gentiles  and  to  justify  from  the  O.  T.  the 
calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  the  rejection  of  the  Jews:  vv.  14,  15 
are  used  by  St.  Augustine  to  prove  that  there  can  be  no  faith 
without  the  Divine  calling;  by  Calvin,  that  as  there  is  faith 
among  the  Gentiles,  there  must  have  been  a  Divine  call,  and  so 
the  preaching  to  them  is  justified.  Then  the  quotations  in  w. 
i8-ai  are  considered  to  refer  to  the  Gentiles  mainly;  they  are 
merely  prophecies  of  the  facts  stated  in  ix.  30,  31  and  do  not 
imply  and  are  not  intended  to  imply  human  responsibility. 

An  apparent  argument  in  favour  of  this  interpretation  is  sug- 
gested by  the  introductory  words  ix.  30,  31.  It  is  maintained  that 
two  propositions  are  laid  down  there;  one  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles,  the  other  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  and  both  these  have 
to  be  justified  in  the  paragraph  that  follows.  But,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  this  reference  to  the  Gentiles  is  clearly  introduced  not  as 
a  main  point  to  be  discussed,  but  as  a  contrast  to  the  rejection 
of  Israel.  It  increases  the  strangeness  of  that  fact,  and  with  that 
fact  the  paragraph  is  concerned.  This  is  brought  out  at  once  by 
the  question  asked  iii  W ;  which  refers,  as  the  answer  shows,  en- 
tirely to  the  rejection  of  Israel.  If  the  Apostle  were  not  condemning 
the  Jews  there  would  be  no  reason  for  his  sorrow  (x.  i)  and  the 
palliation  for  their  conduct  which  he  suggests  (x.  a) ;  and  when 
we  come  to  examine  the  structure  of  the  latter  part  we  find  that 
all  the  leading  sentences  are  concerned  not  with  the  defence  of 
any '  calling,'  but  with  fixing  the  guilt  of  those  rejected :  for  example 
aX-V  ov  ndvrtt  v»r^«tov<ra>'  (v.  1 6),  dXXa  X^ye*,  fifi  wk  iJKOvvav;  (v.  1 8), 
fiff  *l<rpafik  ovK  ?yv»;  (y.  19).  As  there  is  nowhere  any  reference 
to  Gentiles  rejecting  the  message,  the  reference  must  be  to  the 
Jews ;  and  the  object  of  the  section  must  be  to  show  the  reason  why 
(although  Gentiles  have  been  accepted)  the  Jews  have  been  rejected. 
The  answer  is  given  in  the  concluding  quotation,  which  sums  up 
the  whole  argument.  It  is  because  the  Jews  have  been  a  dis- 
obedient and  gainsaying  people.  Chrysostom,  who  brings  out  the 
whole  point  of  this  section  admirably,  sums  up  its  conclusion  as 
follows:  'Then  to  prevent  them  saying,  But  why  was  He  not 
made  manifest  to  os  also  f  he  sets  down  what  is  more  than  this, 
that  I  not  only  was  made  manifest,  but  I  even  continued  with 
My  hands  stretched  out,  inviting  them,  and  displaying  all  tb» 
concern  of  an  affectionatt  father,  and  a  fond  mother  that  is  set  ob 


30a  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX-XX 

her  child.  See  how  he  has  brought  us  a  most  lucid  answei 
to  all  the  diflBculties  before  raised,  by  showing  that  it  was  from 
their  own  temper  that  ruin  had  befallen  them,  and  that  they  are 
wholly  undeserving  of  pardon.' 

We  must  accept  the  interpretation  then  which  sees  in  this 
chapter  a  proof  of  the  guilt  of  the  Jews.  St.  Paul  is  in  fact 
looking  at  the  question  from  a  point  of  view  different  from  that 
which  he  adopted  in  Chap.  ix.  There  he  assumes  Divine  Sovereignty, 
and  assuming  it  shows  that  God's  dealings  with  the  Jews  are 
justified.  Now  he  assumes  human  responsibility,  and  shows  that 
assuming  it  the  Jews  are  guilty.  Two  great  steps  are  passed  in 
the  Divine  Theodicy.  We  need  not  anticipate  the  argument,  but 
must  allow  it  to  work  itself  out  The  conclusion  may  suggest 
a  point  of  view  from  which  these  two  apparently  inconsistent 
attitudes  can  be  reconciled. 


St.  Paul's  Use  of  th$  Old  Testament. 

In  Chaps,  ix-xi  St.  Paul,  as  carrying  on  a  long  and  sustained 
argument,  which,  if  not  directed  against  Jewish  opponents,  discusses 
a  question  full  of  interest  to  Jews  from  a  Jewish  point  of  view, 
makes  continued  use  of  the  O.  T.,  and  gives  an  opportunity  for 
investigating  his  methods  of  quotation  and  interpretation. 

The  text  of  his  quotations  is  primarily  that  of  the  LXX.  Ac- 
cording to  Kautzsch  (^De  Veterit  Testamenti  locis  a  Paulo  Apostolo 
allegatis),  out  of  eighty-four  passages  in  which  St.  Paul  cites  the 
O.  r.  about  seventy  are  taken  directly  from  the  LXX  or  do  not 
vary  from  it  appreciably,  twelve  vary  considerably,  but  still  show 
signs  of  affinity,  and  two  only,  both  from  the  book  of  Job  (Rom. 
xi.  35  =  Job  xli.  3(11);  i  Cor.  iii.  19  =  Job  v.  13)  are  definitely  in- 
dependent and  derived  either  from  the  Hebrew  text  or  some  quite 
distinct  version.  Of  those  derived  from  the  LXX  a  certain  number, 
such  for  example  as  Rom.  x.  15,  show  in  some  points  a  resemblance 
to  the  Hebrew  text  as  against  the  LXX.  We  have  probably  not 
sufficient  evidence  to  say  whether  this  arises  from  a  reminiscence 
of  the  Hebrew  text  (conscious  or  unconscious),  or  from  an  Ara- 
maic Targ^m,  or  from  the  use  of  an  earlier  form  of  a  LXX  text. 
It  may  be  noticed  that  St.  Paul's  quotations  sometimes  agree  with 
late  MSS.  of  the  LXX  as  against  the  great  uncials  (cf.  iii.  4,  15  ff.). 
As  to  the  further  question  whether  he  cites  from  memory  or  by 
reference,  it  may  be  safely  said  that  the  majority  of  the  quotations 
are  from  memory ;  for  many  of  them  are  somewhat  inexact,  and 
those  which  are  correct  are  for  the  most  part  short  and  from  well- 
known  books.  There  is  a  very  marked  distinction  between  thes* 
and  the  long  literary  quotations  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


IX-XI.]  THE  UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  303 

In  his  formulae  of  quotation  St  Paul  adopts  all  the  varioua 
forms  which  seem  to  have  been  in  use  in  the  Rabbinical  schools, 
and  are  found  in  Rabbinical  writings.  Even  his  less  usual  expres- 
sions may  be  paralleled  from  them  (cf.  xi.  2).  Another  point  of 
resemblance  may  be  found  in  the  series  of  passages  which  he 
strings  together  from  different  books  (cf.  iii.  10)  after  the  manner 
of  a  Rabbinical  discourse.  St.  Paul  was  in  fact  educated  as  a  Rabbi 
in  Rabbinical  schools  and  consequently  his  method  of  using  the 
O.  T.  is  such  as  might  have  been  learnt  in  these  schools. 

But  how  far  is  his  interpretation  Rabbinical?  It  is  not  quite 
easy  to  answer  this  question  directly.  It  is  perhaps  better  to  point 
out  first  of  all  some  characteristics  which  it  possesses. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  quite  clearly  not  '  historical '  in  the  modern 
sense  of  the  word.  The  passages  are  quoted  without  regard  to 
their  context  or  to  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  written. 
The  most  striking  instances  of  this  are  those  cases  in  which  the 
words  of  the  O.  T.  are  used  in  an  exactly  opposite  sense  to  that 
which  they  originally  possessed.  For  instance  in  ix.  25,  26  words 
used  in  the  O.  T.  of  the  ten  tribes  are  used  of  the  Gentiles,  in  x.  6-8 
words  used  of  the  Law  are  applied  to  the  Gospel  as  against  the 
Law.  On  the  other  hand  Rabbinical  interpretations  in  the  sense 
in  which  they  have  become  proverbial  are  very  rare.  St.  Paul 
almost  invariably  takes  the  literal  and  direct  meaning  of  the  words 
(although  without  regard  to  their  context),  he  does  not  allegorize 
or  play  upon  their  meaning,  or  find  hidden  and  mysterious  prin- 
ciples. There  are  some  obvious  exceptions,  such  as  Gal.  iv.  22  flf., 
but  for  the  most  part  St.  Paul's  interpretation  is  not  allegorical, 
nor  in  this  sense  of  the  term  Rabbinical. 

Speaking  broadly,  St.  Paul's  use  of  the  O.  T.  may  be  described 
as  literal,  and  we  may  distinguish  three  classes  of  texts.  There 
are  firstly  those,  and  they  are  the  largest  number,  in  which  the 
texts  are  used  in  a  sense  corresponding  to  their  O.  T.  meaning. 
All  texts  quoted  in  favour  of  moral  principles,  or  spiritual  ideas,  or 
the  methods  of  Divine  government  may  be  grouped  under  this  head. 
The  argument  in  ix.  20,  21  is  correctly  deduced  from  O.  T.  prin- 
ciples ;  the  quotation  in  ix.  17  is  not  quite  so  exactly  correct,  but 
the  principle  evolved  is  thoroughly  in  accordance  with  O.  T.  ideas. 
So  again  the  method  of  Divine  Election  is  deduced  correctly  from 
the  instances  quoted  in  ix.  6-13.  Controversially  these  arguments 
were  quite  soxmd ;  actually  they  represent  the  principles  and  ideas 
oftheO.T. 

A  second  class  of  passages  consists  of  those  in  which,  without 
definitely  citing  the  O  T.,  the  Apostle  uses  its  language  in  order 
to  express  adequately  and  impressively  the  ideas  he  has  to  convey. 
A  typical  instance  is  that  in  x.  18,  where  the  words  of  the  Psalm 
•re  used  in  quite  a  different  sense  from  that  which  they  have  in 


304  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX-ZL 

the  original^  and  without  any  definite  formula  of  citation.  So  in 
X.  6-8  (see  the  note)  the  O.  T.  language  is  used  rather  than  a  text 
from  it  cited.  The  same  is  true  in  a  number  of  other  passages 
where,  as  the  text  of  Westcott  and  Hort  exhibits  clearly,  ideas 
borrowed  from  the  O.  T.  are  expressed  in  language  which  is 
borrowed,  but  without  any  definite  sign  of  quotation.  That  this  is 
the  natural  and  normal  use  of  a  religious  book  must  clearly  be 
recognized.  *  For  [the  writers  of  the  N.  T.  the  Scripture],  was 
the  one  thesaurus  of  truth.  They  had  almost  no  other  books. 
The  words  of  the  O.  T.  had  become  a  part  of  their  mental  furni- 
ture, and  they  used  them  to  a  certain  extent  with  the  freedom  with 
which  they  used  their  own  ideas '  (Toy,  Quotations,  &c.  p.  xx).  It 
is  a  use  which  is  constantly  being  made  of  the  Bible  at  the  present 
day,  and  when  we  attempt  to  analyze  the  exact  force  it  is  intended 
to  convey,  it  is  neither  easy  nor  desirable  to  be  precise.  Between 
the  purely  rhetorical  use  on  the  one  side  and  the  logical  proof  on 
the  oiher  there  are  infinite  gradations  of  ideas,  and  it  is  never  quite 
possible  to  say  how  far  in  any  definite  passage  the  use  is  purely 
rhetorical  and  how  far  it  is  intended  to  suggest  a  definite  argument. 

But  there  is  a  third  class  of  instances  in  which  the  words  are 
used  in  a  sense  which  the  original  context  will  not  bear,  and  yet  the 
object  is  to  give  a  logical  proof.  This  happens  mainly  in  a  certain 
class  of  passages ;  in  those  in  which  the  Law  is  used  to  condemn 
the  Law,  in  those  in  which  passages  not  Messianic  are  used  with 
a  Messianic  bearing,  and  in  those  (a  class  connected  with  the  last) 
in  which  passages  are  applied  to  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  which 
do  not  refer  to  that  event  in  the  original.  Here  controversially  the 
method  is  justified.  Some  of  the  passages  used  Messianically  by  the 
Christians  had  probably  been  so  used  by  the  Rabbis  before  them. 
In  all  cases  the  methods  they  adopted  were  those  of  their  contempo- 
raries, however  incorrect  they  may  have  been.  But  what  of  the 
method  in  relation  to  our  own  times  ?  Are  we  justified  in  using  it  ? 
The  answer  to  that  must  be  sought  in  a  comparison  of  their  teaching 
with  that  of  the  Rabbis.  We  have  said  that  controversially  it  was 
justified.  The  method  was  the  same  as,  and  as  good  as,  that  of 
their  own  time ;  but  it  was  no  better.  As  far  as  method  goes  the 
Rabbis  were  equally  justified  in  their  conclusions.  There  is  in 
fact  no  standard  of  right  and  wrong,  when  once  it  is  permitted  to 
take  words  in  a  sense  which  their  original  context  wUl  not  bear. 
Anything  can  be  proved  from  anything. 

Where  then  does  the  superiority  of  the  N.  T.  writers  lie  ?  In 
their  correct  interpretation  of  the  spirit  of  the  O.  T.  '  As  ex- 
pounders of  religion,  they  belong  to  the  whole  world  and  to  all 
time ;  as  logicians,  they  belong  to  the  first  century.  The  essence 
of  their  writing  is  the  Divine  spirit  of  love  and  righteousness  that 
filled  their  souls,  the  outer  shell  is  the  intellectual  form  in  whict 


IX-Xl.]  THE   UNBELIEF  OF  ISRAEL  505 

the  spirit  found  expression  in  words.  Their  comprehension  of  the 
deeper  spirit  of  the  O.  T.  thought  is  one  thing :  the  logical  method 
by  which  they  sought  formally  to  extend  it  is  quite  another '  (Toy, 
Quo/a/tons,  Sfc.  p.  xxi).  This  is  just  one  of  those  points  in  which 
we  must  trace  the  superiority  of  the  N.  T.  writers  to  its  root  and 
take  from  them  that,  and  not  their  faulty  exegesis. 

An  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  Church  History.  The  Church 
inherited  equally  from  the  Jewish  schools,  the  Greek  Philosophers, 
and  the  N.  T.  writers  an  unhistorical  method  of  interpretation ;  and 
in  the  Arian  controversy  (to  take  an  example)  it  constantly  makes 
use  of  this  method.  We  are  learning  to  realize  more  and  more 
how  much  of  our  modern  theology  is  based  on  the  writings  of 
St.  Athanasius ;  but  that  does  not  impose  upon  us  the  necessity  of 
adopting  his  exegesis.  If  the  methods  that  he  applies  to  the  O.  T. 
are  to  be  admitted  it  is  almost  as  easy  to  deduce  Arianism  from 
it.  Athanasius  did  not  triumph  because  of  those  exegetical  methods, 
but  because  he  rightly  interpreted  (and  men  felt  that  he  had  rightly 
•nterpreted)  the  spirit  of  the  N.  T.  His  creed,  his  religious  insight, 
to  a  certain  extent  his  philosophy,  we  accept :  but  not  his  exegetical 
methods. 

So  with  the  O.  T.  St.  Paul  triumphed,  and  the  Christian  Church 
triumphed,  over  Judaism,  because  they  both  rightly  interpreted  the 
spirit  of  the  O.  T.  We  must  accept  that  interpretation,  although  we 
shall  find  that  we  arrive  at  it  on  other  grounds.  This  may  be 
illustrated  in  two  main  points. 

It  is  the  paradox  of  ch.  x  that  it  condemns  the  Law  out  of  the 
Law ;  that  it  convicts  the  Jews  by  applying  to  them  passages,  which 
in  the  original  accuse  them  of  breaking  the  Law,  in  order  to 
condemn  them  for  keeping  it.  But  the  paradox  is  only  apparent. 
Running  through  the  O.  T.,  in  the  books  of  the  Law  as  well  as  in 
those  of  the  Prophets,  is  the  prophetic  spirit,  always  bringing  out 
the  spiritual  truths  and  lessons  concealed  in  or  guarded  by  the  Law 
in  opposition  to  the  formal  adherence  to  its  precepts.  This  spirit 
the  Gospel  inherits.  '  The  Gospel  itself  is  a  reawakening  of  the 
spirit  of  prophecy.  There  are  many  points  in  which  the  teaching 
of  St.  Paul  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of  the  old  Prophets. 
It  is  not  by  chance  that  so  many  quotations  from  them  occur  in 
his  writings.  Separated  from  Joel,  Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  and 
Isaiah  by  an  interval  of  about  800  years,  he  felt  a  kind  of  sympathy 
with  them ;  they  expressed  his  inmost  feeUngs ;  like  them  he  was 
at  war  with  the  evil  of  the  world  around.  When  they  spoke  of 
forgiveness  of  sins,  of  non-imputation  of  sins,  of  a  sudden  turning 
to  God,  what  did  this  mean  but  righteousness  by  faith?  When 
they  said,  "I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice,"  here  also  was 
imaged  the  great  truth,  that  salvation  was  not  of  the  Law  . .  .  Like 
the  elder  Prophets,  he  came  not  "  to  build  up  a  temple  made  witb 

B 


3o6  EPISTLE   TO  THE   ROMANS  [IX-ZI 

hands,"  but  to  teach  a  moral  truth :  like  them  he  went  forth  alone, 
and  not  in  connexion  with  the  church  at  Jerusalem  :  like  them  he 
was  looking  for  and  hastening  to  the  day  of  the  Lord'  (Jowett). 
This  represents  the  truth,  as  the  historical  study  of  the  O.  T.  will 
prove  ;  or  rather  one  side  of  the  truth.  The  Gospel  is  not  merely 
the  reawakening  of  the  spirit  of  prophecy  ;  it  is  also  the  fulfilment 
of  the  spiritual  teaching  of  Law.  It  was  necessary  for  a  later 
writer — the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — when  contro- 
versy was  less  bitter  to  bring  this  out  more  fully.  Christ  not  only 
revived  all  the  teaching  of  the  Prophets,  righteousness,  mercy, 
peace ;  He  also  exhibited  by  His  death  the  teaching  of  the  Law, 
the  heinousness  of  sin,  the  duty  of  sacrifice,  the  spiritual  union  of 
God  and  man. 

The  same  lines  of  argument  will  justify  the  Messianic  use  of  the 
O.  T.  If  we  study  it  historically  the  reality  of  the  Messianic 
interpretation  remains  just  as  clear  as  it  was  to  St.  Paul.  Alle- 
gorical and  incorrect  exegesis  could  never  create  an  idea.  They 
only  illustrate  one  which  has  been  suggested  in  other  ways.  The 
Messianic  interpretation,  and  with  it  the  further  idea  of  the  uni- 
versality of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  arose  because  they  are  contained 
in  the  O.  T.  Any  incorrectness  of  exegesis  that  there  may  be  lies 
not  in  the  ideas  themselves  but  in  finding  them  in  passages  which 
have  probably  a  different  meaning.  We  are  not  bound,  and  it 
would  be  wrong  to  bind  ourselves,  by  the  incorrect  exegesis  of 
particular  passages ;  but  the  reality  and  truth  of  the  Messianic  idea 
and  the  universal  character  of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  as  prophesied 
in  the  O.  T.  and  fulfilled  in  the  N.  T.,  remain  one  of  the  most 
real  and  impressive  facts  in  religious  history.  Historical  criticism 
does  not  disprove  this ;  it  only  places  it  on  a  stronger  foundation 
and  enables  us  to  trace  the  origin  and  growth  of  the  idea  more 
accurately  (cf.  San  day,  Bampton  Lectures,  pp.  404,  405). 

The  value  of  St.  Paul's  exegesis  therefore  lies  not  in  his  true 
interpretation  of  individual  passages,  but  in  his  insight  into  the 
spiritual  meaning  of  the  O.  T. ;  we  need  not  use  his  methods,  but 
the  books  of  the  Bible  will  have  little  value  for  us  if  we  are  not  able 
to  see  in  them  the  spiritual  teaching  which  he  saw.  In  the  cause 
of  truth,  as  a  g^ide  to  right  religious  ideas,  as  a  fatal  enemy  to 
many  a  false  and  erroneous  and  harmful  doctrine,  historical  criticism 
and  interpretation  are  of  immense  value ;  but  if  they  be  divorced 
from  a  spiritual  insight,  such  as  can  be  learnt  only  by  the  spiritual 
teaching  of  the  N.  T.,  which  interprets  the  O.  T.  from  the  stand- 
point of  its  highest  and  truest  fulfilment,  they  will  become  as  barren 
and  unproductive  as  the  strangest  conceits  of  the  Rabbis  or  the 
most  unreal  fancies  of  the  Schoolmen. 

[See,  besides  other  works  :  Jowett,  Contrasts  of  Prophecy,  in  hii 
edition  of  the  Romans;  Toy,  Quotations  in  the  New  Testammi, 


XI.  1-6.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  307 

New  York,  1884;  Kautzsch,  De  Veteris  Tesiamenti  locit  a  Pauh 
Apostolo  alkgatis,  Lipsiae,  1869;  Clemen  (Dr.  August),  Ueber  den 
Gebrauch  des  Alien  Testaments  im  Neuen  Testamenie,  und  speciell  in 
den  Reden  Jesu  (Einladungsschrift,  &c.,  Leipzig,  1891);  Turpie 
(David  McCalman),  Tht  Old  Testament  in  tht  New,  London, 
1868.] 


THB  BBJECnOir  or  ISBAEI.  NOT  COMFLETB. 

XI.  1-10.  Israel  then  has  refused  to  accept  the  salvation 
offered  it;  is  it  therefore  rejected?  No.  At  any  rate  the 
rejection  is  not  complete.  Now  as  always  in  the  history  of 
Israel,  although  the  mass  of  the  people  may  be  condemned  to 
disbelief  there  is  a  remnant  that  shall  be  saved. 

*  The  conclusion  of  the  preceding  argument  is  this.  It  is  through 
their  own  fault  that  Israel  has  rejected  a  salvation  which  was  fully 
and  freely  offered  Now  what  does  this  imply?  Does  it  mean 
that  God  has  rejected  His  chosen  people?  Heaven  forbid  that 
I  should  say  this  I  I  who  like  them  am  an  Israelite,  an  Israelite 
by  birth  and  not  a  proselyte,  a  lineal  descendant  of  Abraham, 
a  member  of  the  tribe  that  with  Judah  formed  the  restored  Israel 
after  the  exile.  'No,  God  has  not  rejected  His  people.  He 
chose  them  for  His  own  before  all  time  and  nothing  can  make 
Him  change  His  purpose.  If  you  say  He  has  rejected  them, 
it  only  shows  that  you  have  not  clearly  grasped  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  concerning  the  Remnant.  Elijah  on  Mt.  Horeb  brought 
just  such  an  accusation  against  his  countrymen.  '  He  complained 
that  they  had  forsaken  the  covenant,  that  they  had  overthrown 
God's  altars,  that  they  had  slain  His  Prophets;  just  as  the  Jews 
at  the  present  day  have  slain  the  Messiah  and  persecuted  His 
messengers.  Elijah  only  was  left,  and  his  life  they  sought.  The 
whole  people,  God's  chosen  people,  had  been  rejected.  *  So  he 
thought;  but  the  Divine  response  came  to  him,  that  there  were  seven 
thousand  men  left  in  Israel  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal. 
There  was  a  kernel  of  the  nation  that  remained  loyal.  '  Exactly 
the  same  circiun stances  exist  now  as  then.  Now  as  then  the  mass 
of  the  people  are  uniaithful,  but  there  ii  a  remnant  of  loyal  ad' 

1  ■ 


)08  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  6-10 

herents  to  the  Divine  message: — a  remnant,  be  it  remembered, 
chosen  by  God  by  an  act  of  free  favour:  'that  is  to  say  those 
whom  God  has  in  His  good  pleasure  selected  for  that  position,  who 
have  in  no  way  earned  it  by  any  works  they  have  done,  or  any 
merit  of  their  own.  If  that  were  possible  Grace  would  lose  all  its 
meaning :  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  God  to  show  free  favour 
to  mankind. 

'  It  is  necessary  then  at  any  rate  to  modify  the  broad  statement 
that  has  been  made.  Israel,  it  is  true,  has  failed  to  obtain  the 
righteousness  which  it  sought;  but,  although  this  is  true  of  the 
nation  as  a  whole,  there  is  a  Remnant  of  which  it  is  not  true. 
Those  whom  God  selected  have  attained  it.  But  what  of  the  rest? 
Their  hearts  have  been  hardened.  Here  again  we  find  the  same 
conditions  prevailing  throughout  Israel's  history.  Isaiah  declared 
(xxix,  lo;  vi.  9,  10)  'how  God  had  thrown  the  people  into  a  state 
of  spiritual  torpor.  He  had  given  them  eyes  which  could  not  see, 
and  ears  which  could  not  hear.  All  through  their  history  the  mass 
of  the  people  has  been  destitute  of  spiritual  insight.  *  And  again 
in  the  book  of  Psalms,  David  (Ixix.  23,  24)  declares  the  Divine 
wrath  against  the  unfaithful  of  the  nation :  '  May  their  table  be  their 
snare.'  It  is  just  their  position  as  God's  chosen  people,  it  is  the  Law 
and  the  Scriptures,  which  are  their  boast,  that  are  to  be  the  cause  of 
their  ruin.  •  They  are  to  be  punished  by  being  allowed  to  cleave 
fast  to  that  to  which  they  have  per\'ersely  adhered.  '** '  Let  their  eyes 
be  blinded,  so  that  they  cannot  see  light  when  it  shines  upon  them : 
let  their  back  be  ever  bent  under  the  burden  to  which  they  have 
so  obstinately  clung.'  This  was  God's  judgement  then  on  Israel 
for  their  faithlessness,  and  it  is  God's  judgement  on  them  now. 

1-36.  St.  Paul  has  now  shown  (i)  (ix.  6-29)  that  God  was 
perfectly  free,  whether  as  regards  promise  or  His  right  as  Creator,  to 
reject  Israel ;  (2)  (ix.  30-x.  21)  that  Israel  on  their  side  by  neglecting 
the  Divine  method  of  salvation  offered  them  have  deserved  this 
rejection.  He  now  comes  to  the  original  question  from  which  he 
started,  but  which  he  never  expressed,  and  asks,  Has  God,  as  might 
be  thought  from  the  drift  of  the  argument  so  far,  really  cast  away 
His  people  ?  To  this  he  gives  a  negative  answer,  which  he  proceeds 
to  justify  by  showing  (i)  that  this  rejection  is  only  partial  (xi.  i-io), 
(2)  only  temporary  (xi.  11-25),  ^^^d  (3)  that  in  all  this  Divine  action 
there  has  been  a  purpose  deeper  and  wiser  than  man  can  altogethei 
understand  (xi.  26—36). 


XI.  1,  2.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  509 

1.  Xfyu  oSf.  This  somewhat  emphatic  phrase  occurring  here 
and  in  ver.  1 1  seems  to  mark  a  stage  in  the  argument,  the  oSp  as 
so  often  summing  up  the  result  so  far  arrived  at.  The  change  of 
particle  shows  that  we  have  not  here  a  third  question  parallel  to 

the  dK\a  Xcyw  of  X.  18,  1 9. 

fif|  dircSaaTo  6  Qeos  rir  \ahy  afi-roo ;  '  Is  it  possible  that  God  has 
cast  away  His  people?'  The  form  of  the  question  implies  neces- 
sarily a  negative  answer  and  suggests  an  argument  against  it,  (i) 
By  the  juxtaposition  of  6  BeSs  and  tAi»  \a6v  avrov.  Israel  is  God's 
people  and  so  He  cannot  reject  them.  Ipsa  populi  eius  appellatio 
rationem  negandi  contiiut.  Beng.  (a)  By  the  use  made  of  the 
language  of  the  O.  T.  Three  times  in  the  O.  T.  (i  Sam.  xii.  2a; 
Ps.  xciii  [xciv].  14;  xciv  [xcv].  4)  the  promise  oIk  antaatTM  Kvptor 
Tov  \a6v  avTov  occurs.  By  using  words  which  must  be  so  well 
known  St.  Paul  reminds  his  readers  of  the  promise,  and  thus  again 
implies  an  answer  to  the  question. 

This  very  clear  instance  of  the  merely  literary  use  of  the  language 
of  the  O.  T.  makes  it  more  probable  that  St.  Paul  should  have 
adopted  a  similar  method  elsewhere,  as  in  z.  6  ff.,  18. 

|fc^  Y^'^^™'  St.  Paul  repudiates  the  thought  with  horror.  All 
his  feelings  as  an  Israelite  make  it  disloyal  in  him  to  hold  it 

sal  Y^P  K'T.X.  These  words  have  been  taken  in  two  ways,  (i) 
As  a  proof  of  the  incorrectness  of  the  suggestion.  St.  Paul  was  an 
Israelite,  and  he  had  been  saved ;  therefore  the  people  as  a  whole 
could  not  have  been  rejected.  So  the  majority  of  commentators 
(Go.  Va.  Oltr.  Weiss).  But  the  answer  to  the  question  does  not 
occur  until  St.  Paul  gives  it  in  a  solemn  form  at  the  beginning  of 
the  next  verse;  he  would  not  therefore  have  previously  given 
a  reason  for  its  incorrectness.  Moreover  it  would  be  inconsistent 
with  St  Paul's  tact  and  character  to  put  himself  forward  so  promi- 
nently. 

(a)  It  it  therefore  better  to  take  it  as  giving  '  the  motive  for  his 
deprecation,  not  a  proof  of  his  denial'  (Mey.  Gif.  Lips.).  Through- 
out this  passage,  St  Paul  partly  influenced  by  the  reality  of  his 
own  sympathy,  partly  by  a  desire  to  put  his  argument  in  a  form  as 
little  oflFensive  as  possible,  has  more  than  once  emphasized  his  own 
kinship  with  Israel  (ix.  1-3;  x.  i).  Here  for  the  first  time,  just 
when  he  is  going  to  disprove  it,  he  makes  the  statement  which  has 
really  been  the  subject  of  the  two  previous  passages,  and  at  once, 
in  order  if  possible  to  disarm  criticism,  reminds  his  readers  that  he 
is  an  Israelite,  and  that  therefore  to  him,  as  much  as  to  them,  the 
supposition  seems  almost  blasphemous. 

'larpaT)Xtrr)S  k.t.X.     Cf.  s  Cor.  xi.  aa ;  Phil.  iii.  5. 

8v  irpolYvw,  which  is  added  by  Lachmann  after  t6v  \abr  airov,  has  the 
mpport  of  A  D  Chrys.  and  other  aathorities,  bnt  clearly  came  in  from  ver.  a. 

8.  o6r  dmioraT*.     St  Paul  gives  expressly  and  formally  a  negative 


5IO  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XL.  % 

answer  to  the  question  he  has  just  asked,  adding  emphasis  by 
repeating  the  very  words  he  has  used. 

tv  -npoiyyut.  The  addition  of  these  words  gives  a  reason  for  the 
emphatic  denial  of  which  they  form  a  part.  Israel  was  the  race 
which  God  in  His  Divine  foreknowledge  had  elected  and  chosen, 
and  therefore  He  could  not  cast  it  off.  The  reference  in  this 
chapter  is  throughout  to  the  election  of  the  nation  as  a  whole,  and 
therefore  the  words  cannot  have  a  limiting  sense  (Orig.  Chrys. 
Aug.),  *  that  people  whom  He  foreknew,'  i.  e.  those  of  His  people 
whom  He  foreknew ;  nor  again  can  they  possibly  refer  to  the 
spiritual  Israel,  as  that  would  oblige  a  meaning  to  be  given  to 
Xaos  different  from  that  in  ver.  i.  The  word  npotyvvt  may  be  taken, 
(i)  as  used  in  the  Hebrew  sense,  to  mean  'whom  He  has  known  or 
chosen  beforehand.'  So  yiv6)(TKti¥  in  the  LXX.  Amos  iii.  2  vfias 
fyvmv  €K  naaSiv  rSav  (f)v\S)v  r^t  yfjs.     And  in  St.  Paul  I  Cor.  viii.  3  « 

S<  Tit  dyar,q  rbv  Qtov,  ovros  fyvcoa-rai  in  aiirov.  Gal.  iv.  9  vvv  dc 
yvdvTff  Q(()V,  naWov  8<  yvaxrBei/rei  vno  &tov.      9  Tim.  ii.  1 9  tyvu  Kvpios 

Tovr  ovras  avrov.  Although  there  is  no  evidence  for  this  use  of 
TTpoyivuxTKdv  it  represents  probably  the  idea  which  St.  Paul  had  in 
his  mind  (see  on  viii.  29).  (2)  But  an  alternative  interpretation 
taking  the  word  in  its  natural  meaning  of  foreknowledge,  must  not 
be  lost  sight  of,  *  that  people  of  whose  history  and  future  destiny 
God  had  full  foreknowledge.*  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning 
with  which  the  word  is  generally  used  (Wisd.  vi.  13;  viii.  8;  xviii.  6; 
Just.  Mart.  Apol.  i.  28 ;  Dial.  42.  p.  261  B.);  so  too  npiyvuait  is  used 
definitely  and  almost  technically  of  the  Divine  foreknowledge  (Acts 
ii.  23);  and  in  this  chapter  St.  Paul  ends  with  vindicating  the 
Divine  wisdom  which  had  prepared  for  Israel  and  the  world 
a  destiny  which  exceeds  human  comprehension. 

t\  ouK  oiSare:  cf.  ii.  4  ,*  vi.  3 ;  vii.  i ;  ix.  21.  'You  must  admit 
this  or  be  ignorant  of  what  the  Scripture  says.'  The  point  of  the 
quotation  lies  not  in  the  words  which  immediately  follow,  but  in  the 
contrast  between  the  two  passages ;  a  contrast  which  represented 
the  distinction  between  the  apparent  and  the  real  situation  at  the 
time  when  the  Apostle  wrote. 

iv  'HXi'a :  '  in  the  section  of  Scripture  which  narrates  the  story 
of  Elijah.'  The  O.  T.  Scriptures  were  divided  into  paragraphs  to 
which  \\  ere  given  titles  derived  from  their  subject-matter ;  and  these 
came  to  be  very  commonly  used  in  quotations  as  references.  Many 
instances  are  quoted  from  the  Talmud  and  from  Hebrew  commen- 
tators :  Berachoth,  fol.  2.  col.  I ,  fol.  4.  col.  2  id  quod  scriptum  est  apud 
Michdel,  referring  to  Is.  vi.  6.  So  Taanigoih,  ii.  i;  Aboih  dt-Rabhi 
Nathan,  c.  9 ;  Shir  hashirim  rabba  i.  6,  where  a  phrase  similar 
to  that  used  here,  'In  Elijah,'  occurs,  and  the  same  passage  is 
quoted,  '  I  have  been  very  jealous  for  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Hosts.' 
So  also  Philo,  Dt  Agricultural  p.  203  (i>  317  Mang.)  Ac)wi  yc^  hf  rtm 


XI.  a-4.]  THE  REJECTION  OF   ISRAEL  31 J 

dpait,  referring  to  Gen.  iii  15.  The  phrase  «ri  rrjs  /Sdrou  Mark 
xii.  a6;  Luke  xx.  37 ;  Clem.  Ifom.  xvi.  14 ;  Apost.  Const,  v.  20,  is 
often  explained  in  a  similar  manner,  but  very  probably  incorrectly, 
the  «irt  being  perhaps  purely  local.  The  usage  exactly  corresponds 
to  the  method  used  in  quoting  the  Homeric  poems.  As  the  Rabbis 
divided  the  O.  T.  into  sections  so  the  Rhapsodists  divided  Homer, 
and  these  sections  were  quoted  by  their  subjects,  ci/'E^ropoj  ai/atpe<r«, 
h  vtKviq.    (See  Fri.  Delitzsch  ad  loc,  Surenhusius,  Bi^Xos  KaTaXXayTjs, 

p.  3«) 

itrrvyxdy^i '  *  h©  accuses  Israel  before  God.'  The  verb  iv- 
Tvyxai-ew  means,  (i)  'to  meet  with,'  (3)  'to  meet  with  for  the 
purposes  of  conversation/  'have  an  interview  with,'  Acts  xxv.  24; 
hence  (3)  'to  converse  with,'  'plead  with,'  Wisdom  viii.  21,  either 
on  behalf  of  some  one  {vnip  nvos)  Rom.  viil  27,  34 ;  Heb.  vii.  25; 
or  against  some  one  (Kara  nvos),  and  so  (4)  definitely  *  to  accuse '  as 
here  and  I  Mace.  xi.  35  '^"^  tvfTvyxavov  kot  avrov  npes  avoixoi  Toiv  CK 

Toi  (Bvovt:  viii.  33;  x.  61,  63. 

The  TR.  «dd»  Xiyuv  at  the  end  of  this  verse  with  K*  L  al.  pier.,  it  is 
omitted  by  K<ABCD£FGP  min.  pauc.,  Vulg.  Sah.  Boh.,  and  most 
Fathen. 

8.  Ki$pic,  Tois  irpo<|)iiTas  k.t.X.  The  two  quotations  come  from 
I  Kings  xix.  10,  14,  18;  the  first  being  repeated  twice.  Elijah 
has  fled  to  Mt.  Horeb  from  Jezebel,  and  accuses  his  countrymen 
before  God  of  complete  apostasy;  he  alone  is  faiihful.  God 
answers  that  even  although  the  nation  as  a  whole  has  deserted 
Him,  yet  there  is  a  faithful  remnant,  7,000  men  who  have  not 
bowed  the  knee  to  Baal,  There  is  an  analogy,  St.  Paul  argues, 
between  this  situation  and  that  of  his  own  day.  The  spiritual 
condition  is  the  same.  The  nation  as  a  whole  has  rejected  God's 
message,  now  as  then;  but  now  as  then  also  there  is  a  faithful 
remnant  left,  and  if  that  be  so  God  caimot  be  said  to  have  cast 
away  His  people. 

The  qtiotatioQ  is  somewhat  shortened  from  the  LXX,  and  the  order  of  the 
clauses  is  inverted,  perhaps  to  put  in  a  prominent  position  the  words  roi/s 
wpo(priTai  aov  dviKruvav  to  which  there  was  most  analogy  during  St.  Paul's 
time  (cf.  Acts  vii.  5a  ;  i  Thess.  ii.  14).  The  Kai  between  the  clauses  of  the 
TR.  is  read  by  DEL  and  later  MiiS.  Justin  Martyr,  Dial.  39.  p.  257  D, 
quotes  the  words  as  in  St.  Paul  and  not  as  in  the  LXX :  Kaj  yap  'HAi'ai 
mpi  vfiaiv  irpos  rbv  Qtbv  ivrvyxo.vaiv  ovrais  \iyff  Kvpif,  roiis  irpoip-qrai  aov 
aireKTfivay  Kai  rd  Qvaiaarripid  aov  ieaT(aKa\pav  Kayw  v-rreXti(p6r)i'  /xoj/oy  Koi 
(TjTovai  T^c  \f/vxr]v  itov.  Kai  avoKpivtrtu  aiir^,  'Et*  tlai  fioi  tuTaKiaxiXLOi 
avSpfs,  at  oiiK  iKapif/av  y6vv  rp  BdoA. 

4.  6  xP'nH'aTKr/ios :  '  the  oracle.'  An  unusual  sense  for  the 
word,  which  occurs  here  only  in  the  N.  T.,  but  is  found  in  2  Mace. 
ii.  4 ;  Clem.  J^om.  xvii.  5 ;  and  occasionally  elsewhere.  The  verb 
Xprniarl^Hv  meant  (i)  originally  'to  transact  business';  then  (2)  ■  to 
consult,'  'deliberate';  hence  (3)  'to  give  audience,'  'answer  after 


)ia  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  4,  i^ 

deliberation';  and  so  finally  (4)  of  an  oracle  'to  give  a  response,' 
taking  the  place  of  the  older  xp°f^  >  ^^^  so  it  is  used  in  the  N.  T. 
of  the  Divine  warning  Mat  ii.  la,  33  xpviMTurOtvrts  kot  ivap:  Luke 
ii.  a6  ;  Acts  x.  33 ;  Heb.  viii.  5 ;  zi.  7  :  cf.  Jos.  Anti.  V.  i.  14 ;  X.  i. 
3 ;  XI.  iii.  4.  From  this  usage  of  the  verb  xp»7A*a»'«'C«  was  derived 
xpifiariafios,  as  the  more  usual  xpwi^^s  from  XP^-  See  also  p.  173. 
rfj  BdaX :  substituted  by  St.  Paul  (as  also  by  Justin  Martyr,  ioc. 
at.)  for  the  LXX  r<a  BoaX,  according  to  a  usage  common  in  other 
passages  in  the  Greek  Version. 

The  word  Baal,  which  means  'Lord,'  appean  to  have  been  originally 

nsed  as  one  of  the  names  of  the  God  of  Israel,  and  as  snch  became  a  part  of 
many  Jewish  names,  as  for  example  Jembbaal  (Jnd.  yi.  3a ;  vii.  1),  Eshbaal 
(i  Chron.  ix.  39),  Meribbaal  (i  Chron.  ix.  40),  &c.  But  gradually  the 
special  association  of  the  name  with  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  Phoenician 
god  caused  the  use  of  it  to  be  forbidden.  Hosea  ii.  16,  17  'and  it  shall  be 
at  that  day,  saith  the  Lord,  that  thou  shalt  call  me  Ishi ;  and  shalt  call  me 
no  more  Baali.  For  I  will  take  away  the  names  of  the  Baalim  out  of  her 
mouth,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  mentioned  by  their  name.'  Owing  to  this 
motive  a  tendency  arose  to  obliterate  the  name  of  Baal  from  the  Scriptures : 
just  as  owing  to  a  feeling  of  reverence  '  Elohim  *  was  substituted  for  *  Jehovah ' 
in  the  second  and  third  books  of  the  Psalms.  This  usage  took  the  form  of 
substituting  Bosheth, '  abomination,'  for  Baal.  So  Eshbaal  (i  Chi.  viii.  33, 
ix.  39)  became  Ishbosheth  (a  Sam.  ii.  8;  iii.  8) ;  Meribbaal  (i  Chr.  ix.  40) 
Mephibosheth  (a  Sam.  ix.  6  if.);  Jembbaal  Jerubbesheth  (a  Sam.  xi.  ai). 
See  also  Hosea  ix.  10;  Jer.  iii.  24;  xi.  13.  Similarly  in  the  LXX  aiaxuvij 
represents  in  one  passage  Baal  of  the  Hebrew  text,  3  Kings  xviii.  19,  aj. 
But  it  seems  to  have  been  more  usual  to  substitute  alaxv^V  '^  reading  for  the 
written  Bda\,  and  as  a  sign  of  this  Qeri  the  feminine  article  was  written ; 
just  as  the  name  Jehovah  was  written  with  the  pointing  of  Adonai.  This 
usage  is  most  common  in  Jeremiah,  but  occurs  also  in  the  books  of  Kings, 
Chronicles,  and  other  Prophets.  It  appears  not  to  occur  in  the  Pentateuch. 
The  plural  rais  occurs  2  Chr.  xxiv.  7 ;  xxxiii.  3.  This,  the  only  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  feminine  article  with  the  masculine  name,  is  given  by 
Dillmann,  Monatsberichte  der  Akademit  dtr  JVisstntchafl  su  Btrlin,  1881, 
p.  601  fT.  and  has  superseded  all  others. 

The  LXX  version  is  again  shortened  in  the  quotation,  and  for  KaraXtitfrn 
is  substituted  KariKitrov  (/.iavr^,  which  is  an  alternative  and  perhaps  more 
exact  translation  of  the  Hebrew. 

6.  oiItws  oiv.  The  application  of  the  preceding  instance  to  the 
circumstances  of  the  Apostle's  own  time.  The  facts  were  the 
same.  St.  Paul  would  assume  that  his  readers,  some  of  whom 
were  Jewish  Christians,  and  all  of  whom  were  aware  of  the  exist- 
ence of  such  a  class,  would  recognize  this.  And  if  this  were  so 
the  same  deduction  might  be  made.  As  then  the  Jewish  people 
were  not  rejected,  because  the  remnant  was  saved ;  so  now  there 
is  a  remnant,  and  this  implies  that  God  has  not  cast  away  His 
people  as  such. 

Xcififta  (on  the  orthogiaphy  cf.  WH.  ii.  App.  p.  154,  who  read 
Xinfia),  *  a  remnant.'  The  word  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the 
N.  T.,  and  in  the  O.  T.  only  twice,  and  then  not  in  the  technical 
sense  of  the  '  remnant'     The  usual  word  for  that  it  r^  KardXtidtBiw 


ZI.  §-!.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  $1$ 

«OT  ^KXoy^y  \dpiTOi'  Predicate  with  yiyovtp.  *  There  has  come 
to  be  through  the  principle  of  selection  which  is  dependent  on  the 
Divine  grace  or  favour.'  This  addition  to  the  thought,  which  is 
further  explained  in  ver.  6,  reminds  the  reader  of  the  result  of  the 
previous  discussion :  that '  election '  on  which  the  Jews  had  always 
laid  so  much  stress  had  operated,  but  it  was  a  selection  on  the 
part  of  God  of  those  to  whom  He  willed  to  give  His  grace,  and 
not  an  election  of  those  who  had  earned  it  by  their  works. 

0.  ct  hi  X'^P^'''^  K.T.X.  A  further  explanation  of  the  principles  of 
election.  If  the  election  had  been  on  the  basis  of  works,  then  the 
Jews  might  have  demanded  that  God's  promise  could  only  be  ful- 
filled if  dl  who  had  earned  it  had  received  it :  St.  Paul,  by  reminding 
them  of  the  principles  of  election  already  laid  down,  implies  that 
the  promise  is  fulfilled  if  the  remnant  is  saved.  God's  people 
are  those  whom  He  has  chosen ;  it  is  not  that  the  Jews  are  chosen 
because  they  are  His  people. 

fircl  ^i  X^P^«  ofinrfrt  yiKcrai  x<^P^S'  *t^^s  follows  from  the  very 
meaning  of  the  idea  of  grace.'  Gratia  nisi  gratis  sit  gratia  turn  est. 
St  Augustine. 

The  TR.  after  '^vvtat  xipit  adds  «I  8J  i(  Ipyw,  otxciri  iar\  x&pu'  lirtl  ro 
Ifi-yoy  cvKin  iarlv  Jipfov  with  K'  (B)  L  and  later  MSS.,  Syrr.,  Chrys.  and  Thdrt. 
(in  the  text,  but  they  do  not  refer  to  the  words  in  their  commentary). 
B  reads  «l  8J  if  Ipyoiv,  ovKiri  xap'S'  iifd  fh  Ipyov  oiiKirt  larl  x"/"*-  The 
clanse  is  omitted  by  K*  A  C  D  E  F  G  P,  Vulg.  Aegyptt.  (Boh.  Sah.^  Arm., 
Orig.-lat.  Jo.-Damasc  Ambrst  Patr.-latt.  There  need  be  no  donbt  that  it  is 
a  gloss,  nor  is  the  authority  of  B  of  any  weight  in  support  of  a  Western 
addition  such  as  this  against  such  preponderating  authority.  This  is  con- 
sidered by  WH.  to  be  the  solitary  or  almost  the  solitary  case  in  which  B 
possibly  has  a  Syrian  reading  (Introd.  ii.  150). 

7.  n  oui» ;  This  verse  sums  up  the  result  of  the  discussion  in 
yf .  s-6.  '  What  then  is  the  result  ?  In  what  way  can  we  modify 
the  harsh  statement  made  in  ver.  i  ?  It  is  indeed  still  true  that 
Israel  as  a  nation  has  failed  to  obtain  what  is  its  aim,  namely 
righteousness :  but  at  the  same  time  there  is  one  portion  of  it,  the 
elect,  who  have  attained  it.' 

tj  %l  €KXoyi^ :  i.  e.  oi  cxXf ktoi.  The  abstract  for  the  concrete 
suggests  the  reason  for  their  success  by  laying  stress  on  the  idea 
rather  than  on  the  individuals. 

oi  8^  Xoiiroi  lTt<apu}Qr\aa,v '.  'while  the  elect  have  attained  what 
they  sought,  those  who  have  failed  to  attain  it  have  been  hardened.' 
They  have  not  failed  because  they  have  been  hardened,  but  they 
have  been  hardened  because  they  have  failed;  cf.  i.  24  fF.,  where 
sin  is  represented  as  God's  punishment  inflicted  on  man  for  their 
rebellion.  Here  St.  Paul  does  not  definitely  say  by  whom,  for 
that  is  not  the  point  it  interests  him  to  discuss  at  present :  he  has 
represented  the  condition  of  Israel  both  as  the  result  of  God's 
action  (ch.  ix)  and  of  their  own  (ch.  x).     Here  *»  in  KarnpTKirnivf 


514  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XI.  7,  8 

ix.  as,  he  uses  the  colourless  passive  without  laying  stress  on  the 
cause :  the  quotation  in  ver.  8  represents  God  as  the  author, 
iirrataav  in  ver.  I X  suggests  that  they  are  free  agents. 

The  verb  noipSo)  (derived  from  rraipoi  a  callus  or  itone  formed  in  the 
bladder)  is  a  medical  term  used  m  Hippocrates  and  elsewhere  of  a  bone  oi 
hard  substance  growing  when  bones  are  fractured,  or  of  a  stone  forming  in 
the  bladder.  Hence  metaphorically  it  is  used  in  the  N.  T.,  and  apparently 
there  only  of  the  heart  becoming  hardened  or  callous :  so  Mark  vi.  5a  ; 
Jo.  xii.  40;  Rom.  xi.  7 ;  2  Cor.  iii.  14:  while  the  noun  irijpojdis  occurs  in 
the  same  sense,  Mark  iii.  5;  Rom.  xi.  35  ;  Eph.  iv.  18.  The  idea  is  in  all 
these  places  the  same,  that  a  covering  has  grown  over  the  heart,  making 
men  incapable  of  receiving  any  new  teaching  however  good,  and  making 
them  oblivious  of  the  wrong  they  are  doing.  In  Job  xvii.  7  {■nctraipoivrai 
yd.p  utrd  up-yfji  ol  b<p6akfj.oi  fiov)  the  word  is  used  of  blindness,  but  again  only 
of  moral  blindness  ;  anger  has  caused  as  it  were  a  covering  to  grow  over 
the  eyes.  There  is  therefore  no  need  to  take  the  word  to  mean  '  blind,'  as 
do  the  grammarians  (Suidas,  nojp6s,  6  Tv<p\6s :  irtttiipaiTai,  TfTv<p\orrou ; 
Hesychius,  irfvtupojfiivoi,  T(rv<p\a)/x(voi)  and  the  Latin  Versions  {txcMcati, 
0bcaecaii).  It  is  possible  that  this  translation  arose  from  a  confusion  with 
vT]p6i  (s-ee  on  Karavv^tajs  below)  which  was  perhaps  occasionally  used  of 
blindness  (see  Prof.  Armitage  Robinson  in  Academy,  1893,  p.  305),  although 
probably  then  as  a  specialized  usage  for  the  more  general  *  maimed.'  Aj- 
though  the  form  ir-qpow  occurs  in  some  MSS.  of  the  N.  T.,  yet  the  evidence 
against  it  is  in  every  case  absolutely  conclusive,  as  it  is  also  in  the  O.  T.  is 
the  one  passage  where  the  word  occurs. 

8.  Ka6us  Y^YP^^"**^^'  ^^-  ^^^^  supports  and  explains  his  last 
statement  ol  8e  \oino\  tnopmSTjaav  by  quotations  from  the  O.  T. 
The  first  which  in  form  resembles  Deut.  xxix.  4,  modified  by 
Is.  xxix.  10;  vi.  9,  10,  describes  the  spiritual  dulness  or  torpor  of 
which  the  prophet  accuses  the  Israelites.  This  he  says  had  been 
given  them  by  God  as  a  punishment  for  their  faithlessness.  These 
words  will  equally  well  apply  to  the  spiritual  condition  of  the 
Apostle's  own  time,  showing  that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
position  of  Israel  as  God's  people,  and  suggebting  a  general  law  oi 
God's  dealing  with  them. 

The  following  extracts,  in  which  the  words  that  St.  Panl  has  mad». 
use  of  are  printed  in  spaced  type,  will  give  the  source  of  the  quotation. 
Deut.  xxix.  4  Koi  oiiK  iSaiKty  Kvpios  6  &e6s  v/mv  icapdiay  (Ibiyat  itai 
i<p9a\fxovi  ^\iir*ir  ttal  S>ra  dKovtiv  iws  rijs  ^fxipat  ravriji.  li. 
xxix.  10  oTi  TTfjTuTiKfv  vfids  Kvpios  ■Bv*v nan  Karavv^tais  :  cf.  Is.  vi.  9,  to 
0*05  oLKOvafTf  Kcu  oil  fiij  avvifTf  nai  ^Ktrrovrfs  ^\€t//tT(  Kal  oil  fii)  tSijTf. 
.  .  Koi  eiTTa  "Ecur  nurt,  Kvptf ;  While  the  form  resembles  the  words  in 
Deut.,  the  historical  situation  and  meanmg  of  the  quotation  are  represented 
by  the  passages  in  Isaiah  to  which  St.  Paul  is  clearly  referring. 

■irfeujjia  itoTavoleus :  '  a  spirit  of  torpor,'  a  state  of  dull  insensi- 
bility to  everything  spiritual,  such  as  would  be  produced  by  drunken- 
ness, or  stupor.  Is.  xxix.  10  (RV.)  '  For  the  Lord  hath  poured 
out  upon  you  the  spirit  of  deep  sleep,  and  hath  closed  your  eyes, 
the  prophets ;  and  your  heads,  the  seers,  hath  He  covered.' 

The  word  maToyv^u  is  derired  from  tcaravvaffofuu.  The  simple  verb 
witam  it  used  to  mean  to  'prick'  or  'strike'  or  'dint'     TLe  coir.pound 


XI.  8-10.]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  $1$ 

verb  wotM  mean,  (l)  to  'strike*  or  'prick  violently,*  and  hence  («)  to 
'  stun ' ;  no  instance  is  quoted  of  it  in  its  primary  sense,  but  it  is  common 
(3)  especially  in  the  LXX  of  strong  emotions,  of  the  prickings  of  lust  Susan. 
10  (Theod.) ;  of  strong  grief  Gen.  xxxiv.  7 ;  Ecclus.  xiv.  i ;  and  so  Acts  ii.  37 
KaTtvvyriacw  rrj  napSiq.  of  being  strongly  moved  by  speaking.  Then  (4)  it  is 
used  of  the  stunning  effect  of  such  emotion  which  results  in  speechlessness : 
Is.  vi.  5  A  rdXat  ifi)  5ti  Kajavivv^fjun  :  Dan.  x.  15  IScu/ta  rd  Tfp6ao)ir6v  fiov 
M  T^v  T^c  Kal  icaT(viyr]v,  and  so  the  general  idea  of  torpor  would  be 
derived.  The  noun  Karaw^tt  appears  to  occur  only  twice,  Is.  xxix.  10 
wvfvfui  Karavv^fois,  Ps.  lix  [Ix].  4  ohov  Karavv^(aj%.  In  the  former  case  it 
clearly  means  '  torpor '  or  '  deep  sleep,'  as  both  the  context  and  the  Hebrew 
show,  in  the  latter  case  probably  so.  It  may  be  noticed  that  this  definite 
meaning  of  '  torpor '  or  *  deep  sleep '  which  is  found  in  the  noun  cannot  be 
exactly  paralleled  in  the  verb ;  and  it  may  be  suggested  that  a  certain  con- 
fiision  existed  with  the  verb  vvaTa^o),  which  means  'to  nod  in  sleep,'  'be 
drowsy,'  just  as  the  meaning  of  ipiOda  was  influenced  by  its  resemblance 
to  ipis  (c£  ii.  8).    On  the  word  generally  see  Fri.  ii.  p.  558  ff. 

lus  rfjs  trqiiepov  ^Jfi^pos:  cf.  Acts  vii.  51  'Ye  stiffnecked  and 
uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy 
Ghost:  as  your  fathers  did  so  do  ye.'  St  Stephen's  speech 
illustrates  more  in  detail  the  logical  assumptions  which  underlie 
St  Paul's  quotations.  The  chosen  people  have  from  the  beginning 
shown  the  same  obstinate  adherence  to  their  own  views  and 
a  power  of  resisting  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  God  has  throughout 
punished  them  for  their  obstinacy  by  giving  them  over  to  spiritual 
blindness. 

9.  KOI  AoPlS  X^yti  11.T.X. :  quoted  from  the  LXX  of  Pb.  Ixviii 

flxix].  23,  34  yfVt}6r]To»  ^  TpaTTffn  avT&v  ivmntov  avT&v  ds  jrayt'Sa,  Koi  (It 
dyranoSoa-tv  Ka\  iTKdvdaXov'  <TKOTia6rfrti><Tav  k.t.X.  (which  is  ascribed  in 
the  title  to  David)  with  reminiscences  of  Ps.  xxxiv  [xxxv].  8,  and 
xxvii  [xxviii].  4.  The  Psalmist  is  represented  as  declaring  the 
Divine  wrath  against  those  who  have  made  themselves  enemies  of 
the  Divine  will.  Those  who  in  his  days  were  the  enemies  of  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  people  are  represented  in  the  Apostle's  days  by 
the  Jews  who  have  shut  their  ears  to  the  Gospel  message. 

tj  TpdiTc^a  oAtuk:  'their  feast.'  The  image  is  that  of  men 
feasting  in  careless  security,  and  overtaken  by  their  enemies,  owing 
to  the  very  prosperity  which  ought  to  be  their  strength.  So  to  the 
Jews  that  Law  and  those  Scriptures  wherein  they  trusted  are  to 
become  the  very  cause  of  their  fall  and  the  snare  or  hunting-net  in 
which  they  are  caught 

vKdf  SaXoK :  '  that  over  which  they  fall,'  *  a  cause  of  their  destruc- 
tion.' 

dKTairo8o)ia :  Ps.  xxvii  [xxviii].  4.  'A  requital,'  'recompense.' 
The  Jews  are  to  be  punished  for  their  want  of  spiritual  insight  by 
being  given  over  to  blind  trust  in  their  own  law;  in  fact  being 
given  up  entirely  to  their  own  wishes. 

10.  ffKOTiaOi^Twaoi'  it.T.\.  '  May  their  eyes  become  blind,  so  that 
they  have  no  insight,  and  their  backs  bent  Uke  men  who  are  continii' 


31 6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  I-IO. 

ally  groping  about  in  the  dark ! '  They  are  to  be  like  those  described 
by  Plato  as  fast  bound  in  the  cave :  even  if  they  are  brought  to  the 
light  they  will  only  be  blinded  by  it,  and  will  be  unable  to  sec. 
The  judgement  upon  them  is  that  they  are  to  be  ever  bent  down 
with  the  weight  of  the  burden  which  they  have  wilfully  taken  on 
their  backs. 

It  may  be  worth  noticing  that  Lipsins,  who  does  not  elsewhere  accept  the 
theory  of  interpolations  in  the  text,  suggests  that  w.  9,  10  are  a  gloss  added 
by  some  reader  in  the  margin  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (of.  Holsten,  Z.f. 
w.  T.  1873,  p.  455;  Michelsen,  Th.  T.  1887,  p.  163;  Protatanten-bibely 
1873,  p.  589;  E.  T.  ii.  154).  It  is  suggested  that  Stairai'Tdi  is  inconsistent 
with  ver.  1 1  flf.  But  it  has  not  been  noticed  that  in  ver.  1 1  we  have  a  change 
of  metaphor,  (vraiaav,  which  would  be  singularly  out  of  place  if  it  came 
immediately  after  ver.  8.  As  it  is,  this  word  is  suggested  and  accounted 
for  by  the  metaphors  employed  in  the  quotation  introduced  in  ver.  9.  H 
we  omit  w,  q,  10  we  must  also  omit  ver.  11.  There  is  throughout  the 
whole  Epistle  a  continuous  succession  of  thought  running  from  verse  to 
verse  which  makes  any  theory  of  interpolation  impossible.  (See  Intro- 
duction, §  9.) 

TAf  Doctrine  of  the  Remnant. 

The  idea  of  the  '  Remnant '  is  one  of  the  most  typical  and 
sif^nificant  in  the  prophetic  portions  of  the  O.  T.  We  meet  it 
first  apparently  in  the  prophetic  narrative  which  forms  the  basis  of 
the  account  of  Elijah  in  the  book  of  Kings,  the  passage  which 
St.  Paul  is  quoting.  Here  a  new  idea  is  introduced  into  Israel's 
history,  and  it  is  introduced  in  one  of  the  most  solemn  and  im- 
pressive narratives  of  that  history.  The  Prophet  is  taken  into  the 
desert  to  commune  with  God ;  he  is  taken  to  Sinai,  the  mountain  of 
God,  which  played  such  a  large  part  in  the  traditions  of  His  people, 
and  he  receives  the  Divine  message  in  that  form  which  has  ever 
marked  off  this  as  unique  amongst  theophanies,  the  '  still  small 
voice,'  contrasted  with  the  thunder,  and  the  storm,  and  the 
earthquake.  And  the  idea  that  was  thus  introduced  marks  a 
stage  in  the  religious  history  of  the  world,  for  it  was  the  first 
revelation  of  the  idea  of  personal  as  opposed  to  national  consecra- 
tion. Up  to  that  time  it  was  the  nation  as  a  whole  that  was 
bound  to  God,  the  nation  as  a  whole  for  which  sacrifices  were 
offered,  the  nation  as  a  whole  for  which  kings  had  fought  and 
judges  legislated.  But  the  nation  as  a  whole  had  deserted  Jehovah, 
and  the  Prophet  records  that  it  is  the  loyalty  of  the  individual 
Israelites  who  had  remained  true  to  Him  that  must  henceforth  be 
reckoned.  The  nation  will  be  chastised,  but  the  remnant  shall  be 
saved. 

The  idea  is  a  new  one,  but  it  is  one  which  we  find  continuously 
from  this  time  onwards  ;  spiritualized  with  the  more  spiritual  ideas 
of  the  later  prophets.     We  find  it  in  Amos  (ix.  8-10),  in  Micah  (ii 


XI.  1-10.]  THE  REJECTION   OF  ISRAEL  317 

is,v.3),  in  Zephaniah  (iii.  i»,  13),  in  Jeremiah  (xxiii.  3),  In  Ezekiel 
(xiv.  14-30,  a  a),  but  most  pointedly  and  markedly  in  Isaiah.  The 
two  great  and  prominent  ideas  of  Isaiah's  prophecy  are  typified  in 
the  names  given  to  his  two  sons, — the  reality  of  the  Divine  ven- 
geance (Maher-shalal-hash-baz)  and  the  salvation  of  the  Remnant 
(Shear-Jashub)  and,  through  the  Holy  and  Righteous  Remnant,  of 
the  theocratic  nation  itself  (vii.  3  ;  viii.  a,  18;  ix.  la;  x.  21,  24); 
and  both  these  ideas  are  prominent  in  the  narrative  of  the  call 
(vL  9—13)  *  Hear  ye  indeed,  but  understand  not,  and  see  ye  indeed, 
but  perceive  not.  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and  make  their 
ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes  . . .  Then  said  I,  Lord,  how  long  ? 
And  He  answered,  Until  cities  be  waste  without  inhabitant  and 
homes  without  men,  and  the  land  become  utterly  waste.'  But  this 
is  only  one  side.  There  is  a  true  stock  left.  '  Like  the  terebinth 
and  the  oak,  whose  stock  remains  when  they  are  cut  down  and  sends 
forth  new  saplings,  so  the  holy  seed  remains  as  a  living  stock  and 
a  new  and  better  Israel  shall  spring  from  the  ruin  of  the  ancient 
state '  (Robertson  Smith,  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  334).  This  doctrine 
of  a  Remnant  implied  that  it  was  the  individual  who  was  true  to 
his  God,  and  not  the  nation,  that  was  the  object  of  the  Divine 
solicitude;  that  it  was  in  this  small  body  of  individuals  that  the 
true  life  of  the  chosen  nation  dwelt,  and  that  from  them  would 
spring  that  internal  reformation,  which,  coming  as  the  result  of  the 
Divine  chastisement,  would  produce  a  whole  people,  pure  and 
undefiled,  to  be  oflfered  to  God  (Is.  Ixv.  8,  9). 

The  idea  appealed  with  great  force  to  the  early  Christians.  I 
appealed  to  St.  Stephen,  in  whose  speech  one  of  the  main  currents 
of  thought  seems  to  be  the  marvellous  analogy  which  runs  through 
all  the  history  of  Israel.  The  mass  of  the  people  has  ever  been 
unfaithful ;  it  is  the  individual  or  the  small  body  that  has  remained 
true  to  God  in  all  the  changes  of  Israel's  history,  and  these  the 
people  have  always  persecuted  as  they  crucified  the  Messiah. 
And  so  St.  Paul,  musing  over  the  sad  problem  of  Israel's  unbelief, 
finds  its  explanation  and  justification  in  this  consistent  trait  of  the 
nation's  history.  As  in  Elijah's  time,  as  in  Isaiah's  time,  so  now  the 
mass  of  the  people  have  rejected  the  Divine  call ;  but  there  always 
has  been  and  still  is  the  true  Remnant,  the  Remnant  whom  God 
has  selected,  who  have  preserved  the  true  life  and  ideal  of  the 
people  and  thus  contain  the  elements  of  new  and  prolonged  hfe. 

And  this  doctrine  of  the  *  Remnant '  is  as  true  to  human  nature 
as  it  is  to  Israel's  history.  No  church  or  nation  is  saved  ev  masse, 
it  is  those  members  of  it  who  aie  righteous.  It  is  not  the  mass 
of  the  nation  or  church  that  has  done  its  work,  but  the  select 
few  who  have  preserved  the  consciousness  of  its  high  caUing. 
It  is  by  the  selection  of  individuals,  even  in  the  nation  that  has 
been  chosen,  that  God  has  worked  equallv  in  religion  and  in  all 


51 8  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XL  U-14 

the  different  lines  along  which  the  path  of  human  development  has 
progressed. 

[On  the  Remnant  see  especially  Jowett,  Contrasts  of  Prophecy, 
in  Romans  ii.  p.  apo;  and  Robertson  Smith,  TTu  Prophets  of 
Israel,  pp.  io6,  209,  234,  258.  The  references  are  collected  in 
Oehler,  Thtologie  dts  alten  Tutaments,  p.  809.J 


THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEI.  NOT  TINAIi. 

XI.  11-24.  Tht  Rejection  of  Israel  is  not  complett,  not 
will  it  he  final.  Its  result  has  been  the  extension  of  th* 
Church  to  the  Gentiles.  The  salvation  of  these  will  stir  the 
Jews  to  jealousy  :  they  will  return  to  the  Kingdom,  and  this 
will  mean  the  final  consummation  (w.  10-15). 

Of  all  this  the  guarantee  is  the  holiness  of  the  stock  from 
which  Israel  comes.  God  has  grafted  you  Gentiles  into  that 
stock  against  the  natural  order ;  far  more  easily  can  He 
restore  them  to  a  position  which  by  nature  and  descent  is 
theirs  (w.  16-24). 

"  The  Rejection  of  Israel  then  is  only  partial.  Yet  still  thert 
is  the  great  mass  of  the  nation  on  whom  God's  judgement  has 
come:  what  of  these?  Is  there  no  further  hope  for  them?  Is 
this  stumbling  of  theirs  such  as  will  lead  to  a  final  and  complete 
fall  ?  By  no  means.  It  is  only  temporary,  a  working  out  of  the 
Divine  purpose.  This  purpose  is  partly  fulfilled.  It  has  resulted 
in  the  extension  of  the  Messianic  salvation  to  the  Gentiles.  It  is 
partly  in  the  future ;  that  the  inclusion  of  these  in  the  Kingdom 
may  rouse  the  Jews  to  emulation  and  bring  them  back  to  the  place 
which  should  be  theirs  and  from  which  so  far  they  have  been 
excluded.  "  And  consider  what  this  means.  Even  the  transgres- 
sion of  Israel  has  brought  to  the  world  a  great  wealth  of  spiritual 
blessings ;  their  repulse  has  enriched  the  nations,  how  much  greater 
then  will  be  the  result  when  the  chosen  people  with  their  numbers 
completed  have  accepted  the  Messiah?  "In  these  speculations 
about  my  countrymen,  I  am  not  disregarding  my  proper  mission 
to  you  Gentiles.  It  is  with  you  in  my  mind  that  I  am  speaking. 
I  will  put  it  more  strongly.  I  do  all  I  can  to  glorify  my  ministry 
«s  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  ^  and  this  in  hopes  that  I  may  succeed 


XI.  14-21.]         THE  REJECTION   OF  ISRAEL  319 

in  bringing  salvation  to  some  at  any  rate  of  my  countrymen  by  thus 
moving  them  to  emulation.  "And  my  reason  for  this  is  what 
I  have  implied  just  above,  that  by  the  return  of  the  Jews  the  whole 
world  will  receive  what  it  longs  for.  The  rejection  of  them  has 
been  the  means  of  reconciling  the  world  to  God  by  the  preaching 
to  the  Gentiles ;  their  reception  into  the  Kingdom,  the  gathering 
together  of  the  elect  from  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  will  inaugurate 
the  final  consummation,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the 
eternal  life  that  follows. 

^  But  what  ground  is  there  for  thus  believing  in  the  return  of  the 
chosen  people  to  the  Kingdom  ?  It  is  the  holiness  of  the  race. 
When  you  take  from  the  kneading  trough  a  piece  of  dough  and 
oflFer  it  to  the  Lord  as  a  heave-offering,  do  you  not  consecrate  the 
whole  mass?  Do  not  the  branches  of  a  tree  receive  life  and 
nourishment  from  the  roots?  So  it  is  with  Israel.  Their  fore- 
fathers the  Patriarchs  have  been  consecrated  to  the  Lord,  and  in 
them  the  whole  race ;  from  that  stock  they  obtain  their  spiritual  life, 
a  life  which  must  be  holy  as  its  source  is  holy.  "  For  the  Church 
of  God  is  like  a  '  green  olive  tree,  fair  with  goodly  fruit,'  as  the 
Prophet  Jeremiah  described  it  Its  roots  are  the  Patriarchs;  its 
branches  the  people  of  the  Lord.  Some  of  these  branches  have 
been  broken  off;  Israelites  who  by  birth  and  descent  were  members 
of  the  Church.  Into  their  place  you  Gentiles,  by  a  process  quite 
strange  and  unnatural,  have  been  grafted,  shoots  from  a  wild  olive, 
into  a  cultivated  stock.  Equally  with  the  old  branches  which  still 
remain  on  the  tree  you  share  in  the  rich  sap  which  flows  from  its 
root  *•  Do  not  for  this  reason  think  that  you  may  insolently  boast 
of  the  position  of  superiority  which  you  occupy.  If  you  are 
inclined  to  do  so,  remember  that  you  have  done  nothing,  that  all 
the  spiritual  privileges  that  you  possess  simply  belong  to  the 
stock  on  which  you  by  no  merit  of  your  own  have  been  grafted. 
*•  But  perhaps  you  say :  *  That  I  am  the  favoured  one  is  shown  by 
this  that  others  were  cut  off  that  I  might  be  grafted  in.*  **  I  grant 
what  you  say;  but  consider  the  reason.  It  was  owing  to  their 
want  of  faith  that  they  were  broken  off :  you  on  the  other  hand 
owe  your  firm  position  to  your  faith,  not  to  any  natural  superiority. 
•^  It  is  an  incentive  therefore  not  to  pride,  as  you  seem  to  think,  but 
to  fear.    For  if  God  did  not  spare  the  holders  of  the  birthright, 


320  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XI.  U 

no  grafted  branches  but  the  natural  growth  of  the  tree,  He  certainly 
will  be  no  more  ready  to  spare  you,  who  have  no  such  privileges 
to  plead.  "  Learn  the  Divine  goodness,  but  learn  and  understand 
the  Divine  severity  as  well.  Those  who  have  fallen  have  e«- 
perienced  the  severity,  you  the  goodness ;  a  goodness  which  will 
be  continued  if  you  cease  to  be  self-confident  and  simply  trust: 
otherwise  you  too  may  be  cut  oflF  as  they  were.  "Nor  again 
is  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  irrevocable.  They  can  be  grafted 
again  into  the  stock  on  which  they  grew,  if  only  they  will  give  up 
their  unbelief.  For  they  are  in  God's  hands ;  and  God's  power  is 
not  limited.  He  is  able  to  restore  them  to  the  position  from  which 
they  have  fallen.  •*  For  consider.  You  are  the  slip  cut  from  the 
olive  that  g^ew  wild,  and  yet,  by  a  process  which  you  must  admit 
to  be  entirely  unnatural,  you  were  grafted  into  the  cultivated  stock. 
If  God  could  do  this,  much  more  can  He  graft  the  natural  branches 
of  the  cultivated  olive  on  to  their  own  stock  from  which  they  were 
cut.  You  Gentiles  have  no  grounds  for  boasting,  nor  have  the 
Jews  for  despair.  Your  position  is  less  secure  than  was  theirs,  and 
if  they  only  trust  in  God,  their  salvation  will  be  easier  than  was 
yours. 

11.  St.  Paul  has  modified  the  question  of  ver.  i  so  far:  the 

rejection  of  Israel  is  only  partial.  But  yet  it  is  true  that  the  rest, 
that  is  the  majority,  of  the  nation  are  spiritually  blind.  They  have 
stumbled  and  sinned.  Does  this  imply  their  final  exclusion  from 
the  Messianic  salvation  ?  St.  Paul  shows  that  it  is  not  so.  It  is 
only  temporary  and  it  has  a  Divine  purpose. 

\4y(a  oSv.  A  new  stage  in  the  argument.  '  I  ask  then  as  to  this 
majority  whose  state  the  prophets  have  thus  described.'  The 
question  arises  immediately  out  of  the  preceding  verses,  but  is 
a  stage  in  the  argument  running  through  the  whole  chapter,  and 
raised  by  the  discussion  of  Israel's  guilt  in  ix.  30-x.  si. 

fii]  iirrauray,  Iva  viaairi ;  '  have  they  (i.  e.  those  who  have  been 
hardened,  ver.  8)  stumbled  so  as  to  fall  ?'  Numquid  sic  offenderunt, 
ut  caderent  y*  Is  their  failure  of  such  a  character  that  they  will  be 
finally  lost,  and  cut  off  from  the  Messianic  salvation  ?  tea  expresses 
the  contemplated  result.  The  metaphor  in  tirrataav  (which  is  often 
used  elsewhere  in  a  moral  sense,  Deut.  vii.  25 ;  James  ii.  10;  iii.  a; 
a  Pet.  i.  id)  seems  to  be  suggested  by  iTKdvdaXov  of  ver.  9.  The 
meaning  of  the  passage  is  given  by  the  contrast  between  Tsraitip 
and  ntaup ;  a  man  who  stumbles  may  recover  himself,  or  he  may 
EaU  completely.     Hence  wwmaw  is  here  used  of  a  complete  and 


XI.  IL]  THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  $Zt 

irrevocable  fall.  Cf.  Is.  Zxiv.  ao  Kuria-xvaf  yap  cV  avr^r  ll  dvofda,  Koi 
jr«r€»rai  Koi  oi  n^  dvvijrai  dvaaTtjvai '.   Ps.  Sol.  iii.  1 3   ?nf<T(v  on  iroprfpot 

t6  nrmfta  avTov,  Koi  ovic  dvaa-rfjcrfTcu :  Heb.  iv.  II.  It  is  no  argument 
against  this  that  the  same  word  is  used  in  w.  22,  23  of  a  fall 
which  is  not  irrevocable:  the  ethical  meaning  must  be  in  each 
case  determined  by  the  context,  and  here  the  contrast  with  fin-aiaav 
suggests  a  fall  that  is  irrevocable. 

There  is  a  good  deal  of  controversy  among  grammarians  as  to  the  admission 
of  a  laxer  use  of  tva,  a  controversy  which  has  a  tendency  to  divide  scholars 
by  nations;  the  German  grammarians  with  Winer  at  their  head  (§  liii.  10.  6, 
p.  573  E.  T.)  maintain  tiiat  it  always  preserves,  even  in  N.  T.  Greek,  its 
classical  meaning  of  purpose ;  on  the  other  hand,  English  commentators  such 
as  Lightfoot  (on  Gal.  v.  17),  Ellicott  (on  i  Thess.  v.  41,  and  Evans  (on  i  Cor. 
vii.  29)  admit  the  laier  use.  Evans  says  '  that  'iva,  like  our  "  that,"  has  three 
uses :  ( I  ^  final  (in  order  that  he  may  go),  (2)  definitive  (I  advise  that  he  go), 
(3)  subjectively  tcbaiit  (have  they  stumbled  that  they  should  fall) ' ;  and  it 
is  quite  clear  that  it  is  only  by  reading  into  passages  a  great  deal  which  is 
not  expressed  that  commentators  can  make  Iva  in  all  cases  mean  '  in  order 
that.'  In  I  Thess.  v.  4  vp.ih  Si,  dS€\<poi,  ova  kar\  iv  okotu,  tva  ^  'fip-ipa 
vfids  (lis  K\ivTT}s  KaraX&Bif,  where  Winer  states  that  there  is  'a  Divine 
purpose  of  God,'  this  is  not  expressed  either  in  the  words  or  the  context. 
In  I  Cor.  vii.  29  i  Kaipbs  cwfCTaXfXfvos  iarl,  rd  \oiv6v  iva  Koi  01  ex"'''''*' 
fwaiKat  uis  pii  (xovTfs  Siai,  '  is  it  probable  that  a  state  of  sitting  loose  to 
worldly  interests  should  be  described  as  the  aim  or  purpose  of  God  in 
curtailing  the  season  of  the  great  tribulation  ? '  Evans.)  Yet  Winer  asserts 
that  the  words  fco  Kal  ol  ixovrts  tc.T.K.  express  the  (Divine)  purpose  for 
which  i  Katpis  awfaraXfiivot  iffri.  So  again  in  the  present  passage  it  is 
only  a  confusion  of  idea*  that  can  see  any  purpose.  If  St.  Paul  had  used 
a  passive  verb  such  as  inwpwOijaav  then  we  might  translate,  '  have  they  been 
hardened  in  order  that  they  may  fall  ? '  and  there  would  be  no  objection  in 
logic  or  grammar,  but  as  St.  Paul  has  written  iiiTcuaav,  if  there  is  a  purpose 
in  the  passage  it  ascribes  stumbling  as  a  deliberate  act  undertaken  with  the 
purpose  of  falling.  We  cannot  here  any  more  than  elsewhere  read  in 
a  Divine  purpose  where  it  is  neither  implied  nor  expressed,  merely  for  the 
sake  of  defending  an  arbitrary  grammatical  rule. 

|iT|  Y^i/oiTo.  St.  Paul  indignantly  denies  that  the  final  fall  of 
Israel  was  the  contemplated  result  of  their  transgression.  The 
result  of  it  has  already  been  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the 
final  purpose  is  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  also. 

-lu  auTuf  irapairFcSfian :  '  by  their  false  step/  continuing  the 
metaphor  of  tirrauav. 

^  auTTjpia  Tois  eOfcaiK.  St.  Paul  is  here  stating  an  histoncai 
fact.  His  own  preaching  to  the  Gentiles  had  been  caused  definitely 
by  the  rejection  of  his  message  on  the  part  of  the  Jews.  Acts 
xiii.  45-48;  cf.  viii.  4;  xi.  19;  xxviii.  28. 

eis  TO  irapalTiXuaai  outous  :  '  to  provoke  them  (the  Jews)  to 
jealousy.'  This  idea  had  already  been  suggested  (x.  19)  by  the 
quotation  from  Deuteronomy  'Eyw  Trapaf/zXaxrw  vpas  eV  ovk  edvet. 

St.  Paul  in  these  two  statements  sketches  the  lines  on  which  the 
Divine  action  is  explained  and  justified.  God's  purpose  has  been 
to  use  the  disobedience  of  the  Jews  in  order  to  promote  the  calling 


Sai  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XI.  11,  1% 

of  the  Gentiles,  and  He  will  eventually  arouse  the  Jews  to  give  up 
their  unbelief  by  en^ulation  of  the  Gentiles.     Eira  KaTa(TKtvd((t,  irt 

t6  nTaicfux  airriiv  8i7rX^»'  oiKovofxlav  tpyd^trai'  rd  r*  yap  tdvrj  avrfiadyd 
KM  (ivTovs  if  ■napaKvi^ov  Ka\  (p<i6i(ov  i7riaTpf<f>*i,  pfi  <ft«poirras  rifw  rvvmirrr)* 
ruv  *dva)v  Tipr)v.     Euthym.-Zig. 

12.  St.  Paul  strengthens  his  statement  by  an  argument  drawn 
from  the  spiritual  character  of  the  Jewish  people.  If  an  event 
which  has  been  so  disastrous  to  the  nation  has  had  such  a  bene- 
ficial result,  how  much  more  beneficial  will  be  the  result  of  the 
entrance  of  the  full  complement  of  the  nation  into  the  Messianic 
kingdom  ? 

irXooTos  KcJfffiou :  the  enriching  of  the  world  by  the  throwing  open 
to  it  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah :  cf.  x.  is  6  ydp  airits  Kipwr 

iravToip,  nXovTav  (is  irdvrai  rovs  iniKoKovpivovi  avrop. 

ri>  TJTTr)|ia  auTUK :  '  their  defeat.'  From  one  point  of  view  the 
unbelief  of  the  Jews  was  a  transgression  (wapaTrTcD^ia),  from  another 
it  was  a  defeat,  for  they  were  repulsed  from  the  Messianic  kingdom, 
since  they  had  failed  to  obtain  what  they  sought. 

llrnjiM  occurs  only  twice  elsewhere :  in  It.  xxzi.  8  ot  9i  vtarlffKoi 
laovrai  (h  f]TTT]/M,  iriTpc^  ydp  7rtpi\i](p6r)<TovTai  ckt  xdpaKi  Kol  ^TrrjO-qaovrat : 
and  in  i  Cor.  vi.  7  ^^'<1  f^i*'  ovv  oXcuy  tjtttjijui  vpiv  icrTiv,  5ti  Kpi/xara  txfTt 
pf9'  iavToiv.  The  correct  interpretation  of  the  word  as  derived  from  the 
verb  would  be  a  '  defeat,'  and  this  is  clearly  the  meaning  in  Isaiah.  It  can 
equally  well  apply  in  i  Cor.,  whether  it  be  translated  a  '  defeat '  in  that  it 
lowers  the  Church  in  the  opinion  of  the  world,  or  a  'moral  defeat,'  hence 
a  '  defect.'  The  same  meaning  suits  this  passage.  The  majority  of  com- 
mentators however  translate  it  here  '  diminution '  (see  especially  Gif.  Sp. 
Comm.  pp.  194,  203),  in  order  to  make  the  antithesis  to  nX-qptupa  exact. 
But  as  Field  points  out  {Otium  Norv.  iii.  97)  there  is  no  reason  why  the 
sentence  should  not  be  rhetorically  faulty,  and  it  is  not  much  improved  by 
giving  ijTTtjpa  the  meaning  of  '  impoverishment '  as  opposed  to  '  replenish- 
ment' 

rh  irKr\p(ofia  adrtav :  '  their  complement,'  *  their  ftill  and  completed 
number.'     See  on  xi.  25. 

The  exact  meaning  of  wK^pcopa  has  still  to  be  ascertained,  i.  There  is 
•  long  and  elaborate  note  on  the  word  in  Lft.  Col.  p.  323  ff.  He  starts  with 
asserting  that  '  substantivet  in  -pa  formed  from  the  perfect  passive,  appear 
always  to  have  a  passive  sense.  They  may  denote  an  abstract  notion  of 
a  concrete  thing ;  they  may  signify  the  action  itself  regarded  as  complete, 
or  the  product  of  the  action  :  but  in  any  case  they  give  the  result  of  the 
agency  involved  in  the  corresponding  verb.'  He  then  takes  the  verb  irAijpov* 
and  shows  that  it  has  two  senses,  (i)  '  to  fill,'  (ii)  '  to  fulfil '  or  '  complete ' ; 
and  deriving  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  word  wKrjpupa  from  the  latter 
usage  makes  it  mean  in  the  N.  T.  always  '  that  which  is  completed.' 
a.  A  somewhat  different  view  of  the  termination  -pa  is  given  by  the  late 
T.  S.  Evans  in  a  note  on  i  Cor.  v.  6  in  the  Sp.  Comm.  (part  of  which  is 
quoted  above  on  Rom.  iv.  2.)  This  would  favour  the  active  sense  ui  quoa 
itnpkt  or  adimplet,  which  appears  to  be  the  proper  sense  of  the  English  word 
'complement '  (see  the  Philolotjical  Society's  Eng.  Diet.  s.v.).  Perhaps  the 
term  '  concrete  '  would  most  adequately  express  the  normal  meaning  o#  th« 
termination. 


XI.  18,  14.]         THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  335 

18, 14.  These  two  verses  present  a  good  deal  of  difficulty,  of 

rather  a  subtle  kind. 

1.  What  is  the  place  occupied  by  the  words  vfiiv  H  X/yw  ictX  in 
the  argument  ?  (i)  Some  ( Hort,  WH,  Lips.)  place  here  the  beginning 
of  a  new  paragraph,  so  Dr.  Hort  writes :  '  after  a  passage  on  the 
rejection  of  unbelieving  Israel,  and  on  God's  ultimate  purpose 
involved  in  it,  St.  Paul  turns  swiftly  round.'  But  an  examination 
of  the  context  will  show  that  there  is  really  no  break  in  the  ideas. 
The  thought  raised  by  the  question  in  ver.  1 1  runs  through  the 
whole  paragraph  to  ver.  24,  in  fact  really  to  ver.  32,  and  the 
reference  to  the  Gentiles  in  ver.  17  flf.  is  clearly  incidental.  Again 
ver.  15  returns  directly  to  ver.  12,  repeating  the  same  idea,  but  in 
a  way  to  justify  also  ver.  13.  (ii)  These  verses  in  their  appeal  to 
the  Gentiles  are  therefore  incidental,  almost  parenthetic,  and  are 
introduced  to  show  that  this  argument  has  an  application  to  Gentiles 
as  well  as  Jews. 

2.  But  what  is  the  meaning  of  fifp  oZv  (that  this  is  the  correct 
reading  see  below)  ?  It  is  usual  to  take  ovv  in  its  ordinary  sense  of 
therefore,  and  then  to  explain  fitv  by  supposing  an  anacoluthon, 
or  by  finding  the  contrast  in  some  words  that  follow.  So  Gif. 
'  Sl  Paul,  with  his  usual  delicate  courtesy  and  perfect  mastery  of 
Greek,  implies  that  this  is  but  one  part  [fitu)  of  his  ministry,  chosen 
as  he  was  to  bear  Christ's  name  "  before  Gentiles  and  kings  and 
the  children  of  Israel."  Winer  and  others  find  the  antithesis  in 
ei  jras  irapaCr)\ci>(To>.  But  against  these  views  may  be  urged  two 
reasons,  (i)  the  meaning  of  /iiv  ovv.  The  usage  at  any  rate  in  the 
N.  T.  is  clearly  laid  down  by  Evans  on  i  Cor.  vi.  3  {Speaker's 
Comm.  p.  285),  '  the  ovv  may  signify  then  or  therefore  only  when 
the  fiiv  falls  back  upon  the  preceding  word,  because  it  is  expectant 
of  a  coming  bi  or  aTdp,  otherwise,  as  is  pointed  out,  the  ^iv  must 
coalesce  with  the  olv,  and  the  idea  is  either  '  corrective  and  substi- 
tutive of  a  new  thought,  or  confirmative  of  what  has  been  stated 
and  addititious.'  Now  if  there  is  this  second  use  of  /xev  oiv  possible, 
unless  the  hi  is  clearly  expressed  the  mind  naturally  would  suggest 
it,  especially  in  St.  Paul's  writings  where  yiiv  ovv  is  generally  so 
used :  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  no  instance  is  quoted  in  the  N.  T. 
where  oZv  in  /lev  oZv  has  its  natin^al  force  in  a  case  where  it  is  not 
followed  by  bi  (Heb.  ix.  i  quoted  by  Winer  does  not  apply,  see 
Westcott  ad  loc).  But  (ii)  further  ovv  is  not  the  particle  required 
^ere.  What  St.  Paul  requires  Is  not  an  apology  for  referring  to 
the  Gentiles,  but  an  apology  to  the  Gentiles  for  devoting  so  much 
attention  to  the  Jews. 

If  these  two  points  are  admitted  the  argument  becomes  much 
clearer.  St.  Paul  remembers  that  the  majority  of  his  readers  are 
Gentiles  ;  he  has  come  to  a  point  where  what  he  has  to  say  touches 
them  nearly ;  he  therefore  shows  paienthetically  bow  his  love  fof 

t  s 


3*4  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  U 

his  countrymen,  and  his  zeal  in  carrying  out  his  mission  to  th« 
Gentiles,  combine  towards  producing  the  same  end.  'Do  not  think 
that  what  I  am  saying  has  nothing  to  do  with  you  Gentiles.  It 
makes  me  even  more  zealous  in  my  work  for  you.  That  ministry 
of  mine  to  the  Gentiles  I  do  honour  to  and  exalt,  seeking  in  this 
way  if  perchance  I  may  be  able  to  move  my  countrymen  to 
jealousy'  Then  in  ver.  15  he  shows  how  this  again  reacts  upon 
the  general  scheme  of  his  ministry.  '  And  this  I  do,  because  their 
return  to  the  Church  will  bring  on  that  final  consummation  for 
which  we  all  look  forward.' 

13.  {i\uv  8e  \4y(o  k.t.X.  The  8«  expresses  a  slight  contrast  in 
thought,  and  the  vfi'if  is  emphatic :  '  But  it  is  to  you  Gentiles  I  am 
speaking.  Nay  more,  so  far  as  I  am  an  Apostle  of  Gentiles, 
I  glorify  my  ministry :  if  thus  by  any  means,'  &c. 

iQvC)v  diroaxoXos :  comp.  Acts  xxii.  ai ;  Gal.  ii.  7,  9;  i  Tim.  ii.  7. 

T^v  SittKoi'iai'  fiou  Solaju.  He  may  glorify  his  ministry,  either 
(i)  by  his  words  and  speech ;  if  he  teaches  everywhere  the  duty  of 
preaching  to  the  Gentiles  he  exalts  that  ministry :  or  (ii),  perhaps 
better,  by  doing  all  in  his  power  to  make  it  successful:    comp. 

«    Cor.  xii.  26  UTf  8o^a(eTai  fifXos. 

This  verse  and  the  references  to  the  Gentiles  that  follow  seem  to 
show  conclusively  that  St.  Paul  expected  the  majority  of  his  readers 
to  be  Gentiles.  Comp.  Hort,  liom.  and Eph,  p.  22  'Though  the 
Greek  is  ambiguous  the  context  appears  to  me  decisive  for  taking 
\)\jl'iv  as  the  Church  itself,  and  not  as  a  part  of  it  In  all  the  long 
previous  discussion  bearing  on  the  Jews,  occupying  nearly  two  and 
a  half  chapters,  the  Jews  are  invariably  spoken  of  in  the  third 
person.  In  the  half  chapter  that  follows  the  Gentiles  are  constantly 
spoken  of  in  the  second  person.  Exposition  has  here  passed  into 
exhortation  and  warning,  and  the  warning  is  exclusively  addressed 
to  Gentiles :  to  Christians  who  had  once  been  Jews  not  a  word  is 
addressed.' 

The  variations  in  reading  in  the  particles  which  ocear  in  this  verse  suggest 
that  considerable  difficulties  were  felt  in  its  inicrpretation.  For  h^  Si 
K  A  B  P  mmusc.  patu.,  Syrr.  Boh.  Arm.,  Theodrt.  itd.  Jo.-Damasc ;  we  find 
in  C  vfuy  oiu ;  while  the  TR  with  D  E  F  G  L  Sec  Orig.-lat.  Chrys.  &c.  has 
v/uv  ydp.  Again  /iiv  oZv  is  read  by  M  A  B  C  P,  Boh.,  Cyr.-AL  Jo.-Damasc. ; 
fifv  only  by  TR  with  L  Sec,  Orig.-lat  Chrys.  &c  (so  Meyer) ;  while  the 
Western  group  D  E  F  G  and  some  minuscules  omit  both. 

It  may  be  noticed  in  the  Epp.  of  St.  Pan!  that  wherever  >iir  oSf  or  fta^mm 
yt  occur  there  is  considerable  variation  in  the  reading. 

Kom.  ix.  ao :  luvovvyf  K  A  K  L  P  ftc,  Syrr.  Boh. ;  #Ur  «Sr  B ;  onit  al- 
together D  F  G. 
X.  18:  ntvovvff  om.  FGd,  Orig.-lat 

I  Cor.  vi.  4 :    ^h'  oCv  most  authorities  ;  F  G  ym/f. 
vi.  7  :    fiiv  owi'  A  B  C  &c. ;  fiiv  HT>  Boh. 

I  Phil.  iii.  8:  ^Jr  o5v  BD  EFGKL  &c. ;  Mo-oCi^f  K  A  P  Boh. 

The  Western  MSS.  as  a  mle  avoid  the  expressioo,  while  B  is  consistent  b 
preferring  it 


XI.  14,  15.]         THE  REJECTION  OF   ISRAEL  $2^ 

14.  cZ  -irws  irapa(T]X«So'w.  «t  tras  is  used  here  interrogatively  with 
the  aorist  subjunctive  (cp.  Phil.  iii.  lo,  ii).  The  grammarians 
explain  the  expression  by  saying  that  we  are  to  understand  with  it 
a-Koir&v.  ft  wms  occuTS  Acts  xxvii.  12  with  the  optative,  Rom.  i.  lo 
with  the  future. 

15  The  two  previous  verses  have  been  to  a  certain  extent 
parenthetical ;  in  this  verse  the  Apostle  continues  the  argument  of 
ver.  I  a,  repeating  in  a  stronger  form  what  he  has  there  said,  but  in 
such  a  way  as  to  explain  the  statement  made  in  w.  13,  14,  that  by 
thus  caring  for  his  fellow-countrymen  he  is  fulfilling  his  mission 
to  the  Gentile  world.  The  casting  away  of  the  Jews  has  meant 
the  reconciliation  of  the  world  to  Christ.  Henceforth  there  is  no 
more  a  great  wall  of  partition  separating  Gk)d's  people  from  the 
rest  of  the  world.  This  is  the  first  step  in  the  founding  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom ;  but  when  all  the  people  of  Israel  shall  have 
come  in  there  will  be  the  final  consummation  of  all  things,  and  this 
means  the  realization  of  the  hope  which  the  reconciliation  of  the 
world  has  made  possible. 

d-iroPoXi^ :  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  for  their  faithlessness.  The 
meaning  of  the  word  is  defined  by  the  contrasted  np6&krp\tK. 

KaraXXayfi  K6(r|i,ou :  cf.  w.  10,  11.  The  reconciliation  was  the 
immediate  result  of  St.  Paul's  ministry,  which  he  describes  elsewhere 
(2  Cor.  V.  18,  19)  as  a  ministry  of  reconciliation ;  its  final  result, 
the  hope  to  which  it  looks  forward,  is  salvation  [KaTaKkayivrts 
vmBrjtToufda) :  the  realization  of  this  hope  is  what  every  Gentile 
must  long  for,  and  therefore  whatever  will  lead  to  its  fulfilment 
must  be  part  of  St.  Paul's  ministry. 

irp(S(rXT]t|ns :  the  reception  of  the  Jews  into  the  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah.  The  noun  is  not  used  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.,  but  the 
meaning  is  shown  by  the  parallel  use  of  the  verb  (cf.  xiv.  3 ;  xv.  7). 

lu^  Ik  i^cKpuK.  The  meaning  of  this  phrase  must  be  determined 
by  that  of  (taraXXoy^  Koafiov.  The  argument  demands  something 
much  stronger  than  that,  which  may  be  a  climax  to  the  section. 
It  may  either  be  (i)  used  in  a  figurative  sense,  cf.  Ezek.  xxxvii.  3  fF.; 

Luke  XV.  24,  32  6  aSeAc^ds  aov  ovtos  vtKpos  t)v,  koi  (Crjat'   Kal  dnoXwXws, 

xaii  fvptdr}.  In  this  sense  it  would  mean  the  universal  diffusion  of 
the  Gospel  message  and  a  great  awakening  of  spiritual  life  as  the 
result  of  it.  Or  (2),  it  may  mean  the  'general  Resurrection'  as 
a  sign  of  the  inauguration  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  In  this 
sense  it  would  make  a  suitable  antithesis  to  (faraXXayij.  The  recon- 
ciliation of  the  heathen  and  their  reception  into  the  Church  on 
earth  was  the  first  step  in  a  process  which  led  ultimately  to  their 
troynfpia.  It  gave  them  grounds  for  hoping  for  that  which  they 
should  enjoy  in  the  final  consummation.  And  this  consummation 
would  come  when  the  kingdom  was  completed.  In  all  contempo- 
rary Jewish  literature  the  Resurrection  (whether  partial  or  general) 


526  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  16-2^ 

is  a  sig^n  of  the  inauguration  of  the  new  era.  Schttrer,  Geschichie,  Ac. 
ii.  p.  460 ;  Jubilees  xxiii.  29  '  And  at  that  time  the  Lord  will  heal 
his  servants,  and  they  will  arise  and  will  see  great  peace  and  will 
cast  out  their  enemies;  and  the  just  shall  see  it  and  be  thankful 
and  rejoice  in  joy  to  all  eternity.'  Enoch  li.  i  (p.  139  ed.  Charles) 
'  And  in  those  days  will  the  earth  also  give  back  those  who  are 
treasured  up  within  it,  and  She61  also  will  give  back  that  which  it 
has  received,  and  hell  will  give  back  that  which  it  owes.  And  he 
will  choose  the  righteous  and  holy  from  among  them  :  for  the  day 
of  their  redemption  has  drawn  nigh.'  As  in  the  latter  part  of  this 
chapter  St  Paul  seems  to  be  largely  influenced  by  the  language 
and  forms  of  the  current  eschatology,  it  is  very  probable  that  the 
second  interpretation  is  the  more  correct;  cf.  Origen  viii.  9,  p.  257 
Tunc  entm  erit  assumito  Israel,  quando  iam  el  mortui  vilam  recipient 
el  mundus  ex  corruptibili  incorruptibilis  fiel,  et  morialts  immorlalilate 
donabuntur;  and  see  below  ver.  26. 

16.  St.  Paul  gives  in  this  verse  the  grounds  of  his  confidence  in 
the  future  of  Israel.  This  is  based  upon  the  holiness  of  the  Patriarchs 
from  whom  they  are  descended  and  the  consecration  to  God  which 
has  been  the  result  of  this  holiness.  His  argument  is  expressed  in 
two  different  metaphors,  both  of  which  however  have  the  same 
purpose. 

diropx^  .  .  .  4'"P«t"*«  The  metaphor  in  the  first  part  of  the 
verse  is  taken  from  Num.  xv.  19,  20  'It  shall  be,  that  when  ye 
eat  of  the  bread  of  the  land,  ye  shall  offer  up  an  heave  offering 
unto  the  Lord.  Of  the  first  of  your  dough  {airapxiiv  (pvpdfiaros  LXX) 
ye  shall  offer  up  a  cake  for  an  heave  offering :  as  ye  do  the  heave 
offering  of  the  threshing  floor,  so  shall  ye  heave  it.'  By  the  offering 
of  the  first-fruits,  the  whole  mass  was  considered  to  be  consecrated ; 
and  so  the  holiness  of  the  Patriarchs  consecrated  the  whole  people 
from  whom  they  came.  That  the  meaning  of  the  dnapxri  is  the 
Patriarchs  (and  not  Christ  or  the  select  remnant)  is  shown  by  the 
parallelism  with  the  second  half  of  the  verse,  and  by  the  explanation 
of  St.  Paul's  argument  given  in  ver.  28  dyanriToi  3ta  tovs  nartpas, 

dyia :  '  consecrated  to  God  as  the  holy  nation '  in  the  technical 
sense  of  ayios,  cf.  i.  7. 

pi(a  .  .  .  icXdSoi.  The  same  idea  expressed  under  a  diflFerent 
image.  Israel  the  Divine  nation  is  looked  upon  as  a  tree;  its 
roots  are  the  Patriarchs;  individual  Israelites  are  the  branches. 
As  then  the  Patriarchs  are  holy,  so  are  the  Israelites  who  belong 
to  the  stock  of  the  tree,  and  are  nourished  by  the  sap  which 
flows  up  to  them  from  those  roots. 

17-24.  The  metaphor  used  in  the  second  part  of  ver.  16  suggests 
an  image  which  the  Apostle  developes  somewhat  elaborately.  The 
image  of  an  olive  tree  to  describe  Israel  is  taken  from  the  Prophets ; 
Jeremiah  xi.  16  '  The  Lord  called  thy  name,  A  green  olive  bee. 


XI.  17-24.]        THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  3*7 

fair  with  goodly  fruit :  with  the  noise  of  a  great  tumult  He  hath 
kindled  fire  upon  it,  and  the  branches  of  it  are  broken ' ;  Hosea 
xiv.  6  '  His  branches  shall  spread,  and  his  beauty  shall  be  as  the 
olive  tree,  and  his  smell  as  Lebanon.'  Similar  is  the  image  of  the 
vine  in  Is.  V.  7  ;  Ps.  Ixxx.  8 ;  and  (of  the  Christian  Chi"-'^h^  in  John 
XV.  I  ff. 

The  main  points  in  this  simile  are  the  following : — 

The  olive  =  the  Church  of  God,  looked  at  as  one  continuous 

body;   the  Christian  Church   being  the  inheritor   of  the 

privileges  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
The  root  or  stock  {piC<^)  =  that  stock  from  which  Jews  and 

Christians  both  alike  receive  their  nourishment  and  strength, 

viz.  the  Patriarchs,  for  whose   faith  originally  Israel  was 

chosen  (cf.  w.  28,  29). 
The  branches  (oJ  /fXaSot)  are  the  individual  members  of  the 

Church  who  derive  their  nourishment  and  virtue  from  the 

Btock  or  body  to  which  they  belong.     These  are  of  two 

kinds: 
The  original  branches ;  these  represent  the  Jews.     Some  have 

been  cut  off  from  their  want  of  faith,  and  no  longer  derive 

any  nourishment  from  the  stock. 
The  branches  of  the  wild  olive  which  have  been  grafted  in. 

These  are  the  Gentile  Christians,  who,  by  being  so  grafted 

in,  have  come  to  partake  of  the  richness  and  virtue  of  the 

olive  stem. 
From  this  simile  St.  Paul  draws  two  lessons,  (i)  The  first  is 
to  a  certain  extent  incidental.  It  is  a  warning  to  the  heathen 
against  undue  exaltation  and  arrogance.  By  an  entirely  unnatural 
process  they  have  been  grafted  into  the  tree.  Any  virtue  that 
they  may  have  comes  by  no  merit  of  their  own,  but  by  the  virtue 
of  the  stock  to  which  they  belong ;  and  moreover  at  any  moment 
they  may  be  cut  oflf.  It  will  be  a  less  violent  process  to  cut  off 
branches  not  in  any  way  belonging  to  the  tree,  than  it  was  to  cm 
off  the  original  branches.  But  {2) — and  this  is  the  more  im- 
portant result  to  be  gained  from  the  simile,  as  it  is  summed  up  in 
ver.  24 — if  God  has  had  the  power  against  all  nature  to  graft  in 
branches  from  a  wild  olive  and  enable  them  to  bear  fruit,  how  much 
more  easily  will  He  be  able  to  restore  to  their  original  place  the 
branches  which  have  been  cut  oflf. 

St.  Paul  thus  deduces  from  his  simile  consolation  for  Israel,  but 
incidentally  also  a  warning  to  the  Gentile  members  of  the  Church — 
a  warning  made  necessary  by  the  great  importance  ascribed  to 
them  in  ver.  1 1  f.     Israel  had  been  rejected  for  their  sake. 

17.  Tivi^:  a  meiosis.  Cf.  iii.  3  rt  yap  tl  t]Tri(TTricrdv  Tivfs',  Tti/ft  8« 
tint,  napaftvOovfjitvot  avrovs,  «»c  woKkdias  tlpifKOfUP,  iwti  vsXX^  irXctovt  d 
amarria-iunts.     £uthym.-Zig. 


5«8  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  17,  18. 

ii€K\da9i\<Taw.  The  same  simile  is  used,  with  a  different  applica- 
tion, Enoch  XZvi.  I  Ka\  fKfldtv  icfitiitvtra  tls  to  futrov  rijs  y^f,  cat  t8ov 
Tonov  T)i\oyr]fxtvov,  iv  ^  iivbpa  i\ovTa  wapa(f>vdSas  ftfvovaat  Km  ffKourrovtrat 
roC  iivbpov  fKKonfVTos. 

dypiAaios :  '  the  wild  olive.*  The  olive,  like  the  apple  and  most 
other  fruit  trees,  requires  to  have  a  graft  from  a  cultivated  tree, 
otherwise  the  fruit  of  the  seedling  or  sucker  will  be  small  and 
valueless.  The  ungrafted  tree  is  the  natural  or  wild  olive.  It  is 
often  confused  with  the  oleaster  {Eleagnus  angusft/olius),  but  quite 
incorrectly,  this  being  a  plant  of  a  different  natural  order,  which 
however  like  the  olive  yields  oil,  although  of  an  inferior  character. 
See  Tristram,  Natural  Hist,  of  the  Bible,  pp.  371-377. 

<K€it€rrpiCT8T]s  iv  auTois :  *  wert  grafted  in  amongst  the  branches  of 
the  cultivated  olive.'  St.  Paul  is  here  describing  a  wholly  unnatural 
process.  Grafts  must  necessarily  be  of  branches  from  a  cultivated 
olive  inserted  into  a  wild  stock,  the  reverse  process  being  one 
which  would  be  valueless  and  is  never  performed.  But  the  whole 
strength  of  St.  Paul's  argument  depends  upon  the  process  being 
an  unnatural  one  (cf.  ver.  34  koI  naph.  (piaiv  tpeKtvrpiadrjs) ;  it  is 
beside  the  point  therefore  to  quote  passages  from  classical  writers, 
which,  even  if  they  seem  to  support  St.  Paul's  language,  describe 
a  process  which  can  never  be  actually  used.  They  could  only  show 
the  ignorance  of  others,  they  would  not  justify  him.  Cf.  Origen  viii.  10, 
p.  265  Sed  ne  hoc  quidem  la  teat  nos  in  hoc  loco,  quod  non  eo  or  dine 
Apostolus  olivcu  et  oleastri  similitudinem  posuit,  quo  apud  agricolas 
habetur.  llli  enim  magis  olivam  oleastro  inserere,  et  non  olivae 
oleastrum  solent :  Paulus  veto  Apostolica  auctoritate  or  dine  com- 
mutato  res  magis  causis,  quam  causas  rebus  aptavit. 

o-uyiton'ui'ds :  i  Cor.  ix.  23 ;  Phil.  i.  7  ;  and  cf.  Eph.  iii.  6  tXvcu.  rh 
tffvrf  avyxKripovopa  Koi  (rvaaufta  Koi  irvniJifTO}(a  rijs  cirayycXtar  f»  Xpurra 
Ii^cot)  dih  roil  evayyfXlov, 

TTJS  pit,f]S  TTJS  iriiTifjTOS  TijS  Aaias  :  COmp.  Jud.  ix.  9  Koi  etnfv  airois 
t)  (kaia,  Mr)  ajroXe(\^aa"a  r^v  irionjra  fiov  .  .  .  nopevcrofiai  J  Test.  XII. 
Pat.   Levi,     8    i    iripnros    KXdbov    pot    (kaias    ?Sojk«    jrioTi;ros.        The 

genitive  rfjt  ntdrrrros  is  taken  by  Weiss  as  a  genitive  of  quality,  as 
in  the  quotation  above,  and  so  the  phrase  comes  to  mean  '  the  fat 
root  of  the  olive.'  Lips,  explains  '  the  root  from  which  the  fatness 
of  the  olive  springs.' 

The  genitiye  r^t  wi&rtfrm  seemed  clamsy  and  nnnatnral  to  later  revisers, 
and  so  was  modified  either  by  the  insertion  of  Koi  after  pi^ijs,  as  in  N«  A  and 
later  MSS.  with  Vulg.  Syrr.  Arm.  Aeth.,  Orig.-lat.  Chrys.,  or  by  the  omission 
of  T^t  p'l^rjs  in  Western  authorities  D  F  G  Iren.-lat. 

18.  p.r]  KaraKauxu  rStv  itXdSwi'.  St.  Paul  seems  to  be  thinking  of 
Gentile  Christians  who  despised  the  Jews,  both  such  as  had 
become  believers  and  such  as  had  not.  The  Church  of  Corinth 
could  furnish  many  instances  of  new  converts  who  were  carried 


XI.  18-22.]         THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  599 

away  by  a  feeling  of  excessive  confidence,  and  who,  partly  on 
grounds  of  race,  partly  because  they  had  understood  or  though* 
they  had  understood  the  Pauline  teaching  of  eXevdtpla,  were  full  o. 
contempt  for  the  Jewish  Christians  and  the  Jewish  race.  Inci- 
dentally St.  Paul  takes  the  opportunity  of  rebuking  such  as  them. 

06  ai  t^v  ptlav  k.t.\.  '  All  your  spiritual  strength  comes  from 
the  stock  on  which  you  have  been  grafted.'  In  the  ordinary  process 
it  may  be  when  a  graft  of  the  cultivated  olive  is  set  on  a  wild  stock 
the  goodness  of  the  fruit  comes  from  the  graft,  but  in  this  case  it  is 
the  reverse ;  any  merit,  any  virtue,  any  hope  of  salvation  that  the 
Gentiles  may  have  arises  entirely  from  the  fact  that  they  are  grafted 
on  a  stock  whose  roots  are  the  Patriarchs  and  to  which  the  Jews, 
by  virtue  of  their  birth,  belong. 

19.  ^pei«  oSv.  The  Gentile  Christian  justifies  his  feeling  <A 
confidence  by  reminding  St.  Paul  that  branches  («cXadoi,  not  oi 
(tXdSot)  had  been  cut  off  to  let  him  in :  therefore,  he  might  argue, 
I  am  of  more  value  than  they,  and  have  grounds  for  my  self- 
confidence  and  contempt. 

20.  KaXws.  St.  Paul  admits  the  statement,  but  suggests  that  the 
Gentile  Christian  should  remember  what  were  the  conditions  on 
which  he  was  admitted.  The  Jews  were  cast  off  for  want  of  faith,  he 
was  admitted  for  faith.  There  was  no  merit  of  his  own,  therefore 
he  has  no  grounds  for  over-confidence:  'Be  not  high-minded; 
rather  fear,  for  if  you  trust  in  your  merit  instead  of  showing  faith 
in  Christ,  you  will  suflfer  as  the  Jews  did  for  their  self-confidence 
and  want  of  faith.' 

21.  «i  yAp  &  Qebs  k.t.X.  This  explains  the  reason  which  made 
it  right  that  they  should  fear.  '  The  Jews — the  natural  branches — 
disbelieved  and  were  not  spared ;  is  it  in  any  way  likely  that  you, 
if  you  disbelieve,  will  be  spared  when  they  were  not— you  who  have 
not  any  natural  right  or  claim  to  the  position  you  now  occupy  ? ' 

oiSf  <rov  4^ci(rcTai  is  the  correct  reading  (with  K  A  B  C  P  min.  pattc.,  Boh., 
Orig.-lat.,  &c.);  either  because  the  direct  future  seemed  too  strong  or  under 
the  influence  of  the  Latin  {ne  forte  nee  tibi parcat  Vulg.  and  Iren.-lat.)  /il^ircus 
ovhk  cov  was  read  by  D  F  G  L  &c.,  Syrr.  Chrys.  &c.,  then  (ptifftrai  was  changed 
into  (ptiarjTai  {min.  p«uc.  and  Chrys.)  for  thie  sake  of  the  grammar,  and  found 
its  way  into  the  TR. 

22.  The  Apostle  sums  up  this  part  of  his  argument  by  deducing 
from  this  instance  the  two  sides  of  the  Divine  character.  God  is  full 
of  goodness  {xpwtottis,  cf.  ii.  4)  and  loving-kindness  towards  man- 
kind, and  that  has  been  shown  by  His  conduct  towards  those 
Gentiles  who  have  been  received  into  the  Christian  society.  That 
goodness  will  always  be  shown  towards  them  if  they  repose  their 
confidence  on  it,  and  do  not  trust  in  their  own  merits  or  the 
privileged  position  they  enjoy.  On  the  other  hand  the  treatment 
of  the  Jews  shows  the  severity  which  also  belongs  to  the  charactei 


350  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  22-34 

of  God ;  a  severity  exercised  against  them  just  because  they  trusted 
in  themselves.  God  can  show  the  same  severity  against  the  Gentiles 
tnd  cut  them  off  as  well  as  the  Jew. 

Aworofda  and  xptjarortj^  thonld  be  read  in  the  second  part  of  the  rerie, 
with  K  A  BC  Oiig.  Jo.-Damasc.  against  the  accusative  of  the  Western  and 
Syrian  text.  D  has  a  mixed  reading,  avoTOftlav  and  xPV''''''^'n^-  the  at- 
•imilation  was  easier  in  the  first  word  than  in  the  second.  The  Stov  after 
XfrjffTOTTjs  is  omitted  by  Ut<r  MSS.  with  Clem.-Alex.,  Orig.  from  a  desire 
for  oniformity. 

Wk  4'irtfieitn[]f.  The  condition  of  their  enjoying  this  goodness  is 
that  they  trust  in  it,  and  not  in  their  position. 

xal  au :  emphatic  like  the  tym  of  ver.  1 9  '  You  too  as  well  as  the 
Jews.' 

23.  St.  Paul  now  turns  from  the  warning  to  the  Gentile  Christians, 
which  was  to  a  certain  extent  incidental,  to  the  main  subject  of  the 
paragraph,  the  possibility  of  the  return  of  the  Jews  to  the  Divine 
Kingdom ;  their  grafting  into  the  Divine  stock. 

KOI  ^Keit'oi  8^ :  '  yes,  and  tiiey  too.' 

24.  This  verse  sums  up  the  main  argument.  If  God  is  so 
powerful  that  by  a  purely  unnatural  process  {napa  (f)v<Tiv)  He  can 
graft  a  branch  of  wild  olive  into  a  stock  of  the  cultivated  plant,  so 
that  it  should  receive  nourishment  from  it ;  can  He  not  equally  well, 
nay  far  more  easily,  reingraft  branches  which  have  been  cut  off 
the  cultivated  olive  into  their  own  stock  ?  The  restoration  of 
Israel  is  an  easier  process  than  the  call  of  the  Gentiles. 


TAf  Merits  of  the  Fathers, 

In  what  sense  does  St.  Paul  say  that  Israelites  are  holy  because 
the  stock  from  which  they  come  is  holy  (ver.  16),  that  they  are 
dya7ri;roi  5ta  roiii  narepas  (ver.  28)?  He  might  almost  seem  to  be 
taking  up  himself  the  argument  he  has  so  often  condemned,  that 
the  descent  of  the  Jews  from  Abraham  is  sufficient  ground  for 
their  salvation. 

The  greatness  of  the  Patriarchs  had  become  one  of  the  common- 
places of  Jewish  Theology.  For  them  the  world  was  created  {Apoc. 
Baruch^  xxi.  24).  They  had  been  surrounded  by  a  halo  of  myth 
and  romance  in  popular  tradition  and  fancy  (see  the  note  on  iv.  3), 
and  very  early  the  idea  seems  to  have  prevailed  that  their  virtues 
had  a  power  for  others  as  well  as  for  themselves.  Certainly  Ezekiel 
in  the  interests  of  personal  religion  has  to  protest  against  some 
such  view :  '  Though  these  three  men,  Noah,  Daniel,  and  Job,  were 
in  it,  they  should  deUver  but  their  own  souls  by  their  righteousness, 
saith  the  Lord  God'  (Ezek.  xiv.  14).  We  know  how  this  had 
developed  by  the  time  of  our  Lord,  and  tiie  cry  had  arisen  :  '  We 


XI.  U-24.]         THE  REJECTION  OF  ISRAEL  $$J 

have  Abraham  for  our  father '  (see  note  on  ii.  3).  At  a  later  iate 
the  doctrine  of  the  merits  of  the  Fathers  had  been  developed 
into  a  system.  As  Israel  was  an  organic  body,  the  several 
members  of  which  were  closely  bound  together,  the  superfluous 
merits  of  the  one  part  might  be  transferred  to  another.  Of 
Solomon  before  he  sinned  it  was  said  that  he  earned  all  by  his 
own  merit,  after  he  sinned  by  the  merit  of  the  Fathers  {Kohel 
rabba  6o<').  A  comment  on  the  words  of  Cant.  i.  5  '  I  am  black, 
but  comely,'  closely  resembles  the  dictum  of  St.  Paul  in  ver.  18 
*  The  congregation  of  Israel  speaks :  I  am  black  through  mine 
own  works,  but  lovely  through  the  works  of  my  fathers '  {Shevioth 
rabba,  c.  23).  So  again:  'Israel  lives  and  endures,  because  it 
supports  itself  on  the  fathers '  {ib.  c.  44).  A  very  close  parallel  to 
the  metaphor  of  ver.  1 7  f.  is  given  by  Wajjikra  rabba,  c.  36  '  As 
this  vine  supports  itself  on  a  trunk  which  is  dry,  while  it  is  itself 
fresh  and  green,  so  Israel  supports  itself  on  the  merit  of  the  fathers, 
although  they  already  sleep.'  So  the  merit  of  the  fathers  is  a  general 
possession  of  the  whole  people  of  Israel,  and  the  protection  of  the 
whole  people  in  the  day  of  Redemption  {Shemoih  rabba,  c.  44 ; 
Beresch  rabba,  c.  70).  So  Pesikia  153^  'The  Holy  One  spake  to 
Israel:  My  sons,  if  ye  will  be  justified  by  Me  in  the  judgement, 
make  mention  to  Me  of  the  merits  of  your  fathers,  so  shall  ye  be 
justified  before  Me  in  the  judgement'  (see  Weber,  AUsyn.  Thtol. 
p.  280  f.). 

Now,  although  St.  Paul  lays  great  stress  on  the  merits  of  the 
Fathers,  it  becomes  quite  clear  that  he  had  no  such  idea  as  this  in 
his  mind;  and  it  is  convenient  to  put  the  developed  Rabbinical 
idea  side  by  side  with  his  teaching  in  order  to  show  at  once  the 
resemblance  and  the  divergence  of  the  two  views.  It  is  quite  clear 
in  the  first  place  that  the  Jews  will  not  be  restored  to  the  Kingdom 
on  any  ground  but  that  of  Faith;  so  ver.  23  Vav  ^17  (mfttivaxri  r^ 
dTTto-ng.  And  in  the  second  place  St.  Paul  is  dealing  (as  becomes 
quite  clear  below)  not  with  the  salvation  of  individuals,  but  with 
the  restoration  of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  The  merits  of  the  Fathers 
are  not  then  looked  upon  as  the  cause  of  Israel's  salvation,  but  as 
a  guarantee  that  Israel  will  attain  that  Faith  which  is  a  necessary 
condition  of  their  being  saved.  It  is  a  guarantee  from  either  of 
two  points  of  view.  So  far  as  our  Faith  is  God's  gift,  and  so  far 
as  we  can  ascribe  to  Him  feelings  of  preference  or  affection  for  one 
race  as  opposed  to  another  (and  we  can  do  so  just  as  much  as 
Scripture  does),  it  is  evidence  that  Israel  has  those  qualities 
which  will  attract  to  it  the  Divine  Love.  Those  qualities  oi  the 
founders  of  the  race,  those  national  qualities  which  Israel  inherits, 
and  which  caused  it  to  be  selected  as  the  Chosen  People,  these  it 
still  possesses.  And  on  the  other  side  so  far  as  Faith  comes  by 
human  effort  or  character,  so  far  that  Faith  of  Abraham,  for  whicfe 


559  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI.  26-8A 

be  was  accounted  righteous  before  God,  is  a  guarantee  that  the 
same  Faith  can  be  developed  in  his  descendants.  After  all  it  is 
because  they  are  a  religious  race,  clinging  too  blindly  to  their  own 
views,  that  they  are  rejected,  and  not  because  they  are  irreligious. 
They  have  a  zeal  for  God,  if  not  according  to  knowledge.  When 
the  day  comes  that  that  zeal  is  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  the  Messiah, 
the  world  will  be  won  for  Christ ;  and  that  it  will  be  so  enlisted  the 
sanctity  and  the  deep  religious  instinct  of  the  Jewish  stock  as 
exhibited  by  the  Patriarchs  is,  if  not  certain  proof,  at  any  rate  evi- 
dence which  appeals  with  strong  moral  force. 


MERCY  TO  AT.Ti  THE  UI.TIMATE  PITBFOSB  OF  OOD. 

XI.  25-36.  All  this  is  the  unfolding  of  a  mystery.  The 
whole  worlds  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  shall  enter  the  Kingdom; 
but  a  passvig  phase  of  disobedience  has  been  allowed  to  the 
Jews  now,  as  to  the  Gentiles  in  the  past,  that  both  alike,  yew 
as  well  as  Gentile,  may  need  and  receive  the  Divine  mercy 
(w.  25-32).  What  a  stupendous  exhibition  of  the  Divine 
mercy  and  wisdom  (w.  33-36)  I 

"  But  I  must  declare  to  you,  my  brethren,  the  purpose  hitherto 
concealed,  but  now  revealed  in  these  dealings  of  God  with  His 
people.  I  must  not  leave  you  ignorant.  I  must  guard  you 
against  self-conceit  on  this  momentous  subject.  That  hardening 
of  heart  which  has  come  upon  Israel  is  only  partial  and  temporary. 
It  is  to  last  only  until  the  full  complement  of  the  Gentiles  has 
entered  into  Christ's  kingdom.  *•  When  this  has  come  about  then  the 
whole  people  of  Israel  shall  be  saved.  So  Isaiah  (lix.  20)  described 
the  expected  Redeemer  as  one  who  should  come  forth  from  the 
Holy  city  and  should  remove  impieties  from  the  descendants  of 
Jacob,  and  purify  Israel :  "  he  would  in  fact  fulfil  God's  covenant 
with  His  people,  and  that  would  imply,  as  Isaiah  elsewhere  explaint 
(xxviL  9),  a  time  when  God  would  forgive  Israel's  sins.  This  is 
our  ground  for  believing  that  the  Messiah  who  has  come  will  bring 
salvation  to  Israel,  and  that  He  will  do  it  by  exercising  the  Divine  pre- 
rogative of  forgiveness;  if  Israel  now  needs  forgiveness  this  only 
makes  us  more  confident  of  the  truth  of  the  prophecy.  "In  the 
Divine  plan,  according  to  which  the  message  of  salvation  has  been 
preached,  the  Jews  are  treated  as  enemies  of  God,  that  room  may 


XI.  25-36.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  333 

be  found  for  you  Gentiles  in  the  kingdom ;  but  this  does  not  alter 
the  fact  that  by  the  Divine  principle  of  selection,  they  are  still  the 
beloved  of  the  Lord,  chosen  for  the  sake  oi  their  ancestors,  the 
Patriarchs.  "God  has  showered  upon  them  His  blessings  and 
called  them  to  His  privileges,  and  He  never  revokes  the  choice 
He  has  made.  "There  is  thus  a  parallelism  between  your  case 
and  theirs.  You  Gentiles  were  once  disobedient  to  God.  Now  it 
has  been  Israel's  turn  to  be  disobedient ;  and  that  disobedience  has 
brought  to  you  mercy.  '*  In  like  manner  their  present  disobedience 
will  have  this  result :  that  they  too  will  be  recipients  of  the  same 
mercy  that  you  have  received.  **And  the  reason  for  the  dis- 
obedience may  be  understood  in  both  cases,  if  we  look  to  the  final 
purpose.  God  has,  as  it  were,  locked  up  all  mankind,  first  Gentiles 
and  then  Jews,  in  the  prison-house  of  unbelief,  that  He  may  be  able 
at  last  to  show  His  mercy  on  all  alike. 

"  When  we  contemplate  a  scheme  like  this  spread  out  before  us 
in  vast  panorama,  how  forcibly  does  it  bring  home  to  us  the  in- 
exhaustible profundity  of  that  Divine  mind  by  which  it  was  planned  1 
The  decisions  which  issue  from  that  mind  and  the  methods  by  which 
it  works  are  alike  inscrutable  to  man.  "  Into  the  secrets  of  the 
Almighty  none  can  penetrate.  No  counsellor  stands  at  His  ear  to 
whisper  words  of  suggestion.  "  Nothing  in  Him  is  derived  from 
without  so  as  to  be  claimed  back  again  by  its  owner.  •*  He  is  the 
source  of  all  things.  Through  Him  all  things  flow.  He  is  the 
final  cause  to  which  all  things  tend  Praised  for  ever  be  His 
name  I    Amen. 

26-86.  St  Paul's  argument  is  now  drawing  to  a  close.  He  has 
treated  all  the  points  that  are  necessary.  He  has  proved  that 
the  rejection  of  Israel  is  not  contrary  to  Divine  justice  or  Divine 
promises.  He  has  convicted  Israel  of  its  own  responsibility.  He 
has  shown  how  historically  the  rejection  of  Israel  had  been  the 
cause  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  heathen,  and  this  has  led  to 
far-reaching  speculation  on  the  future  of  Israel  and  its  ultimate 
restoration ;  a  future  which  may  be  hoped  for  in  view  of  the  spiritual 
character  of  the  Jewish  race  and  the  mercy  and  power  of  God. 
And  now  he  seems  to  see  all  the  mystery  of  the  Divine  purpose 
unfolded  before  him,  and  he  breaks  away  from  the  restrained  and 
formal  method  of  argument  he  has  hitherto  imposed  upon  himself. 
Just  as  when  treating  of  the  Resurrection,  his  argument  passes  into 
revelation,  ' Behold,  I  tell  you  a  mystery'  (i  Cor.  zv.  51) :  so  here 


354  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XI.  25 

he  declares  not  merely  as  the  result  of  his  argument,  but  as  an 
authoritative  revelation,  the  mystery  of  the  Divine  piupose. 

26.  od  Y^p  ^{kdt  A|ias  dyKocir:  cf.  i.  13 ;  I  Cor.  x.  i ;  xii.  i ;  a  Cor. 
I  8;  I  Thess.  iv.  13  :  a  phrase  used  by  St.  Paul  to  emphasize 
something  of  especial  importance  which  he  wishes  to  bring  home 
to  his  readers.  It  always  has  the  impressive  addition  of  *  brethren.' 
The  ydp  connects  the  verse  immediately  with  what  precedes,  but 
also  with  the  general  argument.  St.  Paul's  argument  is  like 
a  ladder ;  each  step  follows  from  what  precedes ;  but  from  time  to 
time  there  are,  as  it  were,  resting-places  which  mark  a  definite 
point  gained  towards  the  end  he  has  in  view. 

TO  fiucm^pioK  TouTo.  Ou  thc  meaning  of  '  mystery '  in  St.  Paul 
see  Lightfoot,  Colossians,  i.  26;  Hatch,  £ss.  in  Bibl,  Gk.  p.  57  ff. 
Just  at  the  time  when  Christianity  was  spreading,  the  mysteries  as 
professing  to  reveal  something  more  than  was  generally  known, 
especially  about  the  future  state,  represented  the  most  popular  form 
of  religion,  and  from  them  St.  Paul  borrows  much  of  his  phraseology. 
So  in  Col.  i.  a8,  i  Cor.  ii.  6  we  have  rCkeiav,  in  Phil.  iv.  is 
fifHVT]ftai,  in  Eph.  i.  13  o-(f>payi(((r6ai ;  SO  in  Ign.  Ephes.  la  TLavkav 
avfifjivaTai.  But  whereas  among  the  heathen  fivcrrfjpiov  was  always 
used  of  a  mystery  concealed,  with  St.  Paul  it  is  a  mystery  revealed. 
It  is  his  mission  to  make  known  the  Word  of  God,  the  mystery 
which  has  been  kept  silent  from  eternal  ages,  but  has  now  been 
revealed  to  mankind  (i  Cor.  ii.  7 ;  Eph.  iii.  3,  4 ;  Rom.  xvi.  25). 
This  mystery,  which  has  been  declared  in  Christianity,  is  the  eternal 
purpose  of  God  to  redeem  mankind  in  Christ,  and  all  that  is  im- 
plied in  that.  Hence  it  is  used  of  the  Incarnation  (i  Tim.  iii.  16), 
of  the  crucifixion  of  Christ  (i  Cor.  ii.  i,  7),  of  the  Divine  purpose 
to  sum  up  all  things  in  Him  (Eph.  i.  9),  and  especially  of  the 
inclusion  of  the  Gentiles  in  the  kingdom  (Eph.  iii.  3,  4;  Col.  i.  26, 
27 ;  Rom.  xvi.  a5).  Here  it  is  used  in  a  wide  sense  of  the  whole 
plan  or  scheme  of  redemption  as  revealed  to  St.  Paul,  by  which 
Jews  and  Gentiles  alike  are  to  be  included  in  the  Divine  Kingdom, 
and  all  things  are  working  up,  although  in  ways  unseen  and 
unknown,  to  that  end. 

Ika  pf)  ^Tc  irap*  jaurois  ^p6¥i\un :  '  that  you  may  not  be  wise  in 
your  own  conceits,'  i.  c.  by  imagining  that  it  is  in  any  way  through 
your  own  merit  that  you  have  accepted  what  others  have  refused : 
it  has  been  part  of  the  eternal  purpose  of  God. 

ir  lavToTi  ought  probably  to  be  read  with  A  B,  Jo.-Damasc  initead  of  «ap' 
tavroU  K  C  D  L  &c.,  Chrys.  &c.,  as  the  latter  would  probably  be  intrainced 
from  xii.  16.  Both  expressioni  occur  In  the  LXX.  Ii.  v.  ai  ol  owtroi  tr 
iavraStf  ProT.  iii.  7  ^^  iaOi  (ppovifiOi  wapd  atavr^. 

irtSpuxns  11.T.X.:  *  a  hardening  m  part'  (cf.  »V  p*povs  i  Cor.  xii.  a 7^ 
St.  Paul  asserts  once  more  what  he  has  constantly  insisted  on 
throughout  this  chapter,  that  this  fall  of  the  Jews  is  only  partial 


XI.  25,  26.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  335 

(cf.  w.  5,  7,  17),  but  here  he  definitely  adds  a  point  to  which  he 
has  been  working  up  in  the  previous  section,  that  it  is  only  tem- 
porary and  that  the  limitation  in  time  is  'until  all  nations  of  the 
earth  come  into  the  kingdom';  cf.  Luke  xxi.  34  'and  Jerusalem 
shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of  the 
Gentiles  be  fulfilled.' 

rh  vXi^pufia  twc  ^Oi'wi'  :  the  full  completed  number,  the  comple- 
ment of  the  Gentiles,  L  e.  the  Gentile  world  as  a  whole,  just  as  in 
ver.  la  Ti  rrXrjpafia  is  the  Jewish  nation  as  a  whole. 

There  was  a  Jewish  basis  to  these  specnlations  on  the  completed  niunber. 
A/0£.  Baruch  xxiii.  4  quia  quando  petcavit  Adam  tt  dtcreta  juit  mors  contra 
e»t  qui  gignerentur,  tunc  nnmerata  est  multitado  eomtn  qui  gignerentur, 
tt  numero  illi  praeparatus  tst  lotus  ubi  hahitarent  viventts  it  ubi  eusto- 
dirtntur  mortui,  nisi  ergo  compleattir  numerus  praedictus  tion  vivet  creatura 
...  4(6)  Ezra  ii.  40,  41  (where  Jewish  ideas  underlie  a  Christian  work) 
rtcipe,  Sion,  numemm  taum  et  conclude  candidatos  tuos,  qui  legem  Domini 
compleverunt :  Jiliorum  tuorum,  quos  optabas,  plenns  est  numerus :  roga 
imperium  Domini  ut  scMctificetur  populus  tuus  qui  vocatus  est  ai  initio. 

cla^XOT)  was  used  almost  technically  of  entering  into  the  Kingdom 
or  the  Divine  glory  or  life  (cf.  Matt.  vii.  2 1 ;  xviii.  8 ;  Mark  ix. 
43-47.),  and  so  came  to  be  used  absolutely  in  the  same  sense 
(Matt.  vii.  13;  xxiii.  13;  Luke  xiii.  24). 

26.  Kol  ouTu :  '  and  so/  i.  e.  by  the  whole  Gentile  world  coming 
mto  the  kingdom  and  thus  rousing  the  Jews  to  jealousy,  cf.  ver.  1 1  f. 
These  words  ought  to  form  a  new  sentence  and  not  be  joined 
with  the  preceding,  for  the  following  reasons:  (i)  the  reference  of 
ovrm  is  to  the  sentence  axptt  ot  k.tX.  We  must  not  therefore 
make  ovr*  .  ,  .  o-od^o-erat  coordinate   with  irmpttxrit  .  .  .  yiyovtv  and 

subordinate  to  on,  for  if  we  did  so  ouro»  would  be  explained  by 
the  sentence  with  which  it  is  coordinated,  and  this  is  clearly  not 
St.  Paul's  meaning.  He  does  not  mean  that  Israel  will  be  saved 
because  it  is  hardened,  (a)  The  sentence,  by  being  made  in- 
dependent, acquires  much  greater  emphasis  and  force. 

irfis  'lapaiiX.  In  what  sense  are  these  words  used?  (i)  The 
whole  context  shows  clearly  that  it  is  the  actual  Israel  of  history 
that  is  referred  to.  This  is  quite  clear  from  the  contrast  with  tA 
ukiipafm  tS)v  i6va)v  in  ver.  2$,  the  use  of  the  term  Israel  in  the  same 
verse,  and  the  drift  of  the  argument  in  w.  17-24.  It  cannot  be 
interpreted  either  of  the  spiritual  Israel,  as  by  Calvin,  or  the 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace,  or  such  Jews  as  believe, 
or  all  who  to  the  end  of  the  world  shall  turn  unto  the  Lord. 

(a)  iras  must  be  taken  in  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word: 
'  Israel  as  a  whole,  Israel  as  a  nation,'  and  not  as  necessarily  in- 
cluding every  individual   Israelite.     Cf.  i  Kings  xii.  i    km  «fir« 

SafiovijX  itpos  wdvra  'icrpaijX :  2  Chron.  xii.  I  iyKOTtkint  rhs  tvrohhi 
Ykvpiov  Koi  was  'lo-paijX  /ler*  avrov  :  Dan.  ix.  1 1  Koi  vas  ^IcrpcajK  wapi^trqf 
ritp  tt^Mv  (Tov  Kot  i^kXuKW  rov  u^  axovaau  Trjs  0mi>qc  vov. 


33^  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [XI.  26,  27. 

ffuO^orcTOi :  '  shall  attain  the  (rmrnpia  of  the  Messianic  age  bj 
being  received  into  the  Cliristian  Church':  the  Jewish  conception 
of  the  Messianic  o-wn^/jta  being  fulfilled  by  the  spiritual  (rmrrjpia  of 
Christianity.     Cf.  x.  13. 

So  the  words  of  St.  Paul  mean  simply  this.  The  people  of 
Israel  as  a  nation,  and  no  longer  ano  fifpow,  shall  be  united  with 
the  Christian  Church.  They  do  not  mean  that  every  Israelite  shall 
finally  be  saved.  Of  final  salvation  St.  Paul  is  not  now  thinking, 
nor  of  God's  dealings  with  individuals,  nor  does  he  ask  about  those 
who  are  already  dead,  or  who  will  die  before  this  salvation  o( 
Israel  is  attained.  He  is  simply  considering  God's  dealings  with 
the  nation  as  a  whole.  As  elsewhere  throughout  these  chapters, 
St.  Paul  is  dealing  with  peoples  and  classes  of  men.  He  looks 
forward  in  prophetic  vision  to  a  time  when  the  whole  earth, 
including  the  kingdoms  of  the  Gentiles  (t6  n-Xi^pw^a  tS)v  i6vS>v)  and 
the  people  of  Israel  inas  'lapaifk),  shall  be  united  in  the  Church  of 
God. 

26,  27.  Ko6us  yfypoTrroi,  The  quotation  is  taken  from  the 
LXX  of  Is.  lix.  20,  the  concluding  words  being  added  from  Is. 
xxvii.  9,  The  quotation  is  free :  the  only  important  change,  how- 
ever, is  the  substitution  of  (k  Stwi/  for  the  fvtKtv  Sjwi^  of  the  LXX. 
The  Hebrew  reads  '  and  a  Redeemer  shall  come  to  Zion,  and  unto 
them  that  turn  from  transgression  in  Jacob.'  The  variation 
apparently  comes  from  Ps.  xiii.  7,  lii.  7  (LXX)  Wt  fia,(Tti  tx  liitu  t6 

iTwr-qpiov  Tov   laparjK  ; 

The  passage  occurs  in  the  later  portion  of  Isaiah,  just  where  the 
Prophet  dwells  most  fully  on  the  high  spiritual  destinies  of  Israel  ; 
and  its  application  to  the  Messianic  kingdom  is  in  accordance  with 
the  spirit  of  the  original  and  with  Rabbinic  interpretation.  St.  Paul 
uses  the  words  to  imply  that  the  Redeemer,  who  is  represented  by 
the  Prophets  as  coming  from  Zion,  and  is  therefore  conceived  by 
him  as  realized  in  Christ,  will  in  the  end  redeem  the  whole  of  Israel. 
The  passage,  as  quoted,  implies  the  complete  purification  of  Israel 
from  their  iniquity  by  the  Redeemer  and  the  forgiveness  of  their 
sins  by  God. 

In  these  speculations  St.  Paul  was  probably  strongly  influenced, 
at  any  rate  as  to  their  form,  by  Jewish  thought.  The  Rabbis  con- 
nected these  passages  with  the  Messiah :  cf.  Tract.  Sanhedrin,  f. 
98.  I  *  R.  Jochanan  said:  When  thou  shalt  see  the  time  in  which 
many  troubles  shall  come  like  a  river  upon  Israel,  then  expect  the 
Messiah  himself  as  says  Is.  lix.  19.'  Moreover  a  universal  restora- 
tion of  Israel  was  part  of  the  current  Jewish  expectation.  All 
Israel  should  be  collected  together.  There  was  to  be  a  kingdom 
in  Palestine,  and  in  order  that  Israel  as  a  whole  might  share  in 
this  there  was  to  be  a  general  resurrection.  Nor  was  the  belief  in 
the   coming  in  of  ^e  fulr^ess  of  the  Gentiles  without   parallel 


XI.  26-29.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  33; 

Although  later  Judaism  entirely  denied  all  hope  to  the  Gentiles, 
much  of  the  Judaism  of  St.  Paul's  day  stiU  maintained  the  O.  T. 
belief  (Is.  xiv.  2;  Ixvi.  12,  19-21;  Dan.  ii.  44;  vii.  14,  27).  So 
Enoch  xc.  33  '  And  all  that  had  been  destroyed  and  dispersed  and 
all  the  beasts  of  the  field  and  all  the  birds  of  the  heaven  assembled 
in  that  house,  and  the  Lord  of  the  sheep  rejoiced  with  great  joy 
because  they  were  all  good  and  had  returned  to  his  house.'  Orac. 
Sibyll.  iii.  710  f.  kcX  rort  ifj  vrjiroi  naa-ai  noKus  r  fpiovariv  .  .  .  dfvrt, 
nttrovrts  iiravrtt  f?rt  x^""*  Xto-ffi/iecr^a  dddvarov  ^acrtX^a,  6e6v  fityav 
dfvaov  Tt.  Ps.  Sol.  xvii.  33-35  *  And  he  shall  purge  Jerusalem  and 
make  it  holy,  even  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  old,  so  that  the  nations 
may  come  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  see  his  glory,  bringing  as 
gifts  her  sons  that  had  fainted,  and  may  see  the  glory  of  the  Lord, 
wherewith  God  hath  glorified  her.'  The  centre  of  this  kingdom 
will  be  Jerusalem  (compare  the  extract  given  above),  and  it  is 
perhaps  influenced  by  these  conceptions  that  St.  Paul  in  ix.  26 
inserts  the  word  '  there '  and  here  reads  «'«  Stwv.  If  this  be  so,  it 
shows  how,  although  using  so  much  of  the  forms  and  language  of 
current  conceptions,  he  has  spiritualized  just  as  he  has  broadened 
them.  Gal.  iv.  26  shows  that  he  is  thinking  of  a  Jerusalem  which 
is  above,  very  different  from  the  purified  earthly  Jerusalem  of  the 
Rabbis;  and  this  enables  us  to  see  how  here  also  a  spiritual 
conception  underlies  much  of  his  language. 

6  ^u<Sfi€>'os :  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.     Cf.  i  Thess.  i.  10. 

27.  ical  ooTTj  K.T.X. :  '  and  whensoever  I  forgive  their  sins  then 
shall  my  side  of  the  covenant  I  have  made  with  them  be  fulfilled.' 

28.  KarA  ^iv  to  iuay^ikvov :  'as  regards  the  Gospel  order,  the 
principles  by  which  God  sends  the  Gospel  into  the  world.'  This 
verse  sums  up  the  argument  of  w.  11-24. 

^X^poi :  treated  by  God  as  enemies  and  therefore  shut  oflf  from 
Him. 

81*  fljAas :  '  for  your  sake,  in  order  that  you  by  their  exclusion 
may  be  brought  into  the  Messianic  Kingdom.' 

kotA  8i  T^K  IkXoyti»'  :  '  as  regards  the  principle  of  election : ' 
'  because  they  are  the  chosen  race.'  That  this  is  the  meaning  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  the  word  is  parallel  to  tiayyiXiov.  It  cannot 
mean  here,  as  in  w.  5,  6,  '  as  regards  the  elect,'  i.  e.  the  select 
remnant.  It  gives  the  grounds  upon  which  the  chosen  people  were 
beloved.  With  dyainiTOi,  cf.  ix.  25;  the  quotation  there  probably 
suggested  the  word. 

8id  ToOs  iroWpos :  cf.  ix.  4  ;  xi.  16  f. :  '  for  the  sake  of  the  Patri- 
archs '  from  whom  the  Israelites  have  sprung  and  who  were  well- 
pleasing  to  God. 

29.  St.  Paul  gives  the  reason  for  believing  that  God  will  not 
desert  the  people  whom  He  has  called,  and  chosen,  and  on  whom 
He  has  showered  His  Divine  blessings.    It  lies  in  the  unchangeable 


.^3^  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XI.  29-8%. 

nature  of  God  :  He  does  not  repent  Him  of  the  choice  that  He  hai 
made. 

d|jieTajjiAi(|To :  a  Cor.  vii.  lo.  The  Divine  gifts,  such  as  have 
been  enumerated  in  ix.  4,  5,  and  such  as  God  has  showered  upon 
the  Jews,  bear  the  impress  of  the  Giver.  As  He  is  not  one  who 
will  ever  do  that  for  which  He  will  afterwards  feel  compunction. 
His  feelings  of  mercy  towards  the  Jews  will  never  change. 

^1  KXfjais :  the  calling  to  the  Kingdom. 

80.  The  grounds  for  believing  that  God  does  not  repent  for  the 
gifts  that  He  has  given  may  be  gathered  from  the  parallelism 
between  the  two  cases  of  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles,  in  one  of  which 
His  purpose  has  been  completed,  in  the  other  not  so.  The  Gentile 
converts  were  disobedient  once,  as  St.  Paul  has  described  at  length 
in  the  first  chapter,  but  yet  God  has  now  shown  pity  on  them,  and 
to  accomplish  this  He  has  taken  occasion  from  the  disobedience  of 
the  Jews :  the  same  purpose  and  the  same  plan  of  providence  may 
be  seen  also  in  the  case  of  the  Jews.  God's  plan  is  to  make  dis- 
obedience an  opportunity  of  showing  mercy.  The  disobedience 
of  the  Jews,  like  that  of  the  Gentiles,  had  for  its  result  the  manifesta 
tion  of  the  mercy  of  God. 

The  ufxets  shows  that  this  verse  is  written,  as  is  all  this  chapter 
with  the  thought  of  Gentile  readers  prominently  before  the  writer's 
mind. 

8L  Tw  6}i.tTipif  i\iu  :  '  by  that  same  mercy  which  was  shown  to 
you.'  If  the  Jews  had  remained  true  to  their  covenant  God  would 
have  been  able  on  His  side  merely  to  exhibit  fidelity  to  the 
covenant.  As  they  have  however  been  disobedient,  they  equally 
with  the  Gentiles  are  recipients  of  tne  Divine  mercy.  These  words 
ru  viuTtptf  (Xc»  go  with  t\€T)6oi(ri,  d.  Gal.  ii.  10;  a  Cor.  xiL  7,  as  ia 
shown  by  the  parallelism  of  the  two  clauses 


This  parallelism  of  the  clauses  may  account  for  the  presence  of 
the  second  tniv  with  «'X*ij^w(rt,  which  should  be  read  with  N  B  D,  Boh., 
Jo.  Damasc.  It  was  omitted  by  Syrian  and  some  Western  authorities 
(A  E  F  G,  &c.  Vulg.  Syrr.  Arm.  Aeth.,  Orig.-lat.  rell.)  because  it 
seemed  hardly  to  harmonize  with  facts.  The  authorities  for  it 
are  too  varied  for  it  to  be  an  accidental  insertion  arising  from  a 
repetition  of  the  previous  pvv. 

82.  St.  Paul  now  generalizes  from  these  instances  the  character 
ol  God's  plan,  and  concludes  his  argument  with  a  maxim  which 
solves  the  riddle  of  the  Divine  action.  There  is  a  Divine  purpose 
in  the  sin  of  mankind  described  in  i.  iS-iiL  ao;  there  is  a  DfrsM 


XI.  82,  83.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  339 

purpose  in  the  faithlessness  of  the  Jews.  The  object  of  both  alike 
is  to  give  occasion  for  the  exhibition  of  the  Divine  mercy.  If  God 
has  shut  men  up  in  sin  it  is  only  that  He  may  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  showing  His  compassion.     So  in  Gal.  iii.  a  a  aikXa  trvv- 

ikKtiaev  ^  ypaf^h  ^^  ir^vra  tnro  anapriav,  tva  ^  inayytXia  tK  iritrrtat  Irftrov 
Xpurrov  do^g  rols  vurrtvovai,  the  result  of  sin  is  represented  as  being 
to  give  the  occasion  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  and  the 
mission  of  the  Messiah.  All  God's  dealings  with  the  race  are  in 
accordance  with  His  final  purpose.  However  harsh  they  may 
seem,  when  we  contemplate  the  final  end  we  can  only  burst  forth 
into  thankfulness  to  God. 

vwiKktKQt  Ydp  h  6cos :  cf.  L  14  f.,  and  see  below,  p.  347. 

auK^KXciffc :  Ps,  Ixxviii  [Ixxvii].  6a  'He  gave  his  people  over 
unto  the  sword  (awiKkuvtv  tls  pofi<f)aiav).'  Used  with  the  pregnant 
sense  of  giving  over  so  that  there  can  be  no  escape. 

ToOs  -irdrras.  Not  necessarily  every  single  individual,  but  all  looked 
at  collectively,  as  the  wKffpwua  t&v  i6vS>v  and  was  'lo-pa^X.  All  the  classes 
mto  which  the  world  may  be  divided,  Jew  and  Gentile  alike,  will  be 
admitted  into  the  Messianic  Kingdom  or  God's  Church.  The 
reference  is  not  here  any  more  than  elsewhere  to  the  final  salvation 
of  every  individual. 

88.  St.  Paul  has  concluded  his  argument  He  has  vindicated 
the  Divine  justice  and  mercy.  He  has  shown  how  even  the  reign 
of  sin  leads  to  a  beneficent  result.  And  now,  carried  away  by  the 
contrast  between  the  apparent  injustice  and  the  real  justice  of  God, 
having  demonstrated  that  it  is  our  knowledge  and  not  His  goodness 
that  is  at  fault  when  we  criticize  Him,  he  bursts  forth  in  a  great 
ascription  of  praise  to  Him,  declaring  the  unfathomable  character 
of  His  wisdom. 

We  may  notice  that  this  description  of  the  Divine  wisdom  re- 
presents not  so  much  the  conclusion  of  the  argument  as  the  assump- 
tion that  underlies  it.  It  is  because  we  believe  in  the  infinite 
character  of  the  Divine  power  and  love  that  we  are  able  to  argue 
that  if  in  one  case  unexpectedly  and  wonderfully  His  action  has 
been  justified,  therefore  in  other  cases  we  may  await  the  result, 
resting  in  confidence  on  His  wisdom. 

Marcion't  text,  which  had  omitted  eyoything  between  z.  5  end  zL  34  (tee 
on  ch.  x)  here  resumes.  Tert.  quotes  w.  33,  33  as  follows:  t  profundum 
divitiantm  tt  tapientiat  Dti,  «t  imnotstigabiUi  via4  eius,  omitting  icaL 
•fvdiaton  and  iis  Mx^tptvvrjTa  rd  Kpi/iara  ainov,  Tlxen  follow  tt.  34,  35 
without  any  Tariation.    On  ver.  36  we  Icnow  nothing.    See  Zahn,  p.  518. 

PdOos:  'inexhaustible  wealth.'  Cf.  Prov.  xviiL  3  ^ados  naKStv, 
troubles  to  which  there  is  no  bottom.  The  three  genitives  that 
follow  are  probably  coordinate ;  vXovrov  means  the  wealth  of  the 
Divine  grace,  cf.  z.  la ;  o-o(^ias  and  yvnattas  are  to  be  distinguished 
as  meaning  the  former,  a  broad  and  comprehensive  survey  of  things 

1  • 


340  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XI  88-86, 

in  their  special  relations,  what  we  call  Philosophy ;  the  latter  aa 
intuitive  penetrating  perception  of  particular  truths  (see  Lft.  on 
Col.  i.  9). 

dvelepeuinrjTo :  Prov.  xxv.  3,  Sym. ;  and  perhaps  Jer.  JiviL  9,  Sym. 
(Field,  Hexapla,  ii.  617),  'unsearchable';  Kpi|AaTa,  not  judicial  de- 
cisions, but  judgements  on  the  ways  and  plans  of  life.  Cf.  Ecclus. 
XVll.  I  2  BiadijKTjv  al&vot  ftrnjan*  ft«T  avrav,  Koi  ri  xplfiara  ovrov  irridti^ 
avToiii. 

Ave^ixylatrroi :  '  that  cannot  be  traced  out/  Eph.  iil  8 ;  Job  v.  9 ; 
be.  10 ;  xxxiv.  24.  This  passage  seems  to  have  influenced  i  Clem. 
Rom.  XX.  5  d^vacrav  rt  avt^ixviavra  ....  0VPf](tTat  npnarayfiaariv, 

84.  Tis  Y^P  ^V'*  K.T.X.  This  is  taken  from  Is.  xl.  13,  varying 
only  very  slightly  from  the  LXX.     It  is  quoted  also  i  Cor.  ii.  16. 

85.  f{  Tis  Trpoe'SwKiK  auTu.  (cal  drrairoSodi^veTai  aurw;  taken  from 
Job xli.  1 1,  but  not  the  LXX,  which  reads  (ver.  a) tU  dvrttrr^o-crai  ^i  km 
vrronivfi ;  The  Hebrew  (RV.)  reads, '  Who  hath  first  given  unto  me 
that  I  should  repay  him  ? '  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  onlj 
other  quotation  in  St.  Paul  which  varies  very  considerably  from  the 
LXX  is  also  taken  from  the  book  of  Job  (i  Cor.  iii.  19,  cf.  Job  v.  13), 
seep.  30a.  This  verse  corresponds  to  i>  ^ddos  nXovrov.  'So  rich 
are  the  spiritual  gifts  of  God,  that  none  can  make  any  return,  and 
He  needs  no  recompense  for  what  He  gives.' 

86.  God  needs  no  recompense,  for  all  things  that  are  exist  in 
Him,  all  things  come  to  man  through  Him,  and  to  Him  all  return. 
He  is  the  source,  the  agent,  and  the  final  goal  of  all  created  things 
and  all  spiritual  life. 

Many  commentators  have  attempted  to  find  in  these  words 
a  reference  to  the  work  of  the  diflferent  persons  of  the  Trinity  (see 
esp.  Liddon,  who  restates  the  ajgument  in  the  most  successful 
form).  But  (i)  the  prepositions  do  not  suit  this  interpretation : 
81*  auTou  indeed  expresses  the  attributes  of  the  Son,  but  els  ootiJi' 
can  not  naturally  or  even  possibly  be  used  of  the  Spirit  (2)  The 
whole  argument  refers  to  a  different  line  of  thought.  It  is  the 
relation  of  the  Godhead  as  a  whole  to  the  universe  and  to  created 
things.  God  (not  necessarily  th«  ^ather)  is  the  source  and  inspirer 
and  goal  of  all  inings. 

This  fundamental  assumption  of  the  infinite  character  of  the  Divine 

wisdom  was  one  which  St.  Paul  would  necessarily  inherit  from  Judaism. 
It  is  expressed  most  clearly  and  definitely  in  writings  produced  immediately 
after  the  fall  of  Jerusnlem,  when  the  pious  Jew  who  still  preserved  a  belief 
in  the  Divine  favour  towards  Israel  could  find  no  hope  or  solution  of  the 
problem  but  in  a  tenacious  adherence  to  what  he  could  hold  only  by  faith, 
God's  ways  are  deeper  and  more  wonderful  than  man  could  ever  understand 
or  fathom  :  only  this  was  certain — that  there  was  a  Divine  purpose  of  love 
towards  Israel  which  would  be  shown  in  God's  own  time.  There  are  many 
resemblances  to  St.  Paul,  not  only  in  thought  but  in  expression.  j4/>oc. 
Baruck  xiv.  8,  9  Sed  quis,  Dominator  Domine,  assequetur  iudicium  tuum  f 
mut  quis  inveitigabit  profundutn  via*  tutu  ?  aui  quu  supptitaUt  gratntaUm 


IX-XI.]    MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE   34I 

ftmiiat  tumtt  aut  quis  foterit  cogitart  coiuiUum  tuum  incomprehensibiUi 
ant  quit  unquam  tx  natis  inveniet  principium  autfintm  iapientiae  tuae  ? . .. 
zx.  4  tt  tunc  ostendam  tibi  iudicium  virtutis  meat,  »t  vias  [in]tnvesttgabila 
.  .  .  xxi.  10  tu  tuim  solus  $s  vivtns  immortalis  »t  [in  utvestigabilis  et 
nunurum  hominum  nosti  . .  .  liv.  la,  13  eequis  enim  assimilabitur  in  mira- 
hilibus  tuis,  Deus,  aut  quis  comprehtndet  cogitationem  tuam  profundam 
vitae  t  Quia  tu  tonsilio  tuc  gubtmas  omnes  creaturas  quas  creavii  dextera 
iua,  et  tu  omnemfontcm  lucis  apud  t$  tonstituisti,  *t  thesaurum  sapientiat 
subtus  throHum  tuum  praeparasti  . .  .  Ixxr  quis  assimilabitur,  Domine,  boni- 
tati  tuast  est  enim  incomprehensibilis.  Aut  quis  scrutabitur  miseratients 
tuas,  quae  sunt  infinitat  ?  aut  quis  comprehendet  intelligentiam  tuam  ?  aut 
quis  poterit  consonart  cogitationts  mentis  tuae  ?  4  Ezra  v.  34  torqutnt  me 
rents  mei  per  tmnem  horam  quatrentem  apprehendere  semitam  Altissimi  et 
investigate  partem  iudicii  tius.  et  dixit  ad  me  Non  poles  .  .  .  \o  et  dixit  ad 
AM  Quomodo  non  potes  facere  unum  de  his  quae  dicta  sunt,  sic  non  poteris 
imemre  iudicium  meum  autfiuem  caritatis  quam  popule  promisi  t 

Tki  Argument  of  Romans  IX-XI. 

In  the  summary  that  has  been  given  (pp.  269-275)  of  the  various 
opinions  which  have  been  held  concerning  the  theology  of  this 
section,  and  especially  of  ch.  ix,  it  will  have  been  noticed  that 
almost  all  commentators,  although  they  differed  to  an  extraordinary 
degree  in  the  teaching  which  they  thought  they  had  derived  from 
•:he  passage,  agreed  in  this,  that  they  assumed  that  St.  Paul  was 
primarily  concerned  with  the  questions  that  were  exercising  their 
own  minds,  as  to  the  conditions  under  which  grace  is  given  to  man. 
and  the  relation  of  the  human  life  to  the  Divine  will.  Throughom 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  a  small  number  of  com- 
mentators are  distinguished  from  the  general  tendency  by  laying 
stress  on  the  fact  that  both  in  the  ninth  and  in  the  eleventh  chapter, 
it  is  not  the  lot  of  the  individual  that  is  being  considered,  nor 
eternal  salvation,  but  that  the  object  of  the  Apostle  is  to  explain 
the  rejection  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation ;  that  he  is  therefore  dealing 
with  nations,  not  individuals,  and  with  admission  to  the  Christian 
Church  as  representing  the  Messianic  o-tonypt'a  and  not  directly  with 
the  future  state  of  mankind.  This  view  is  very  ably  represented  by 
the  English  philosopher  Locke ;  it  is  put  forward  in  a  treatise  which 
has  been  already  referred  to  by  Beyschlag  (p.  275)  and  forms  the 
basis  of  the  exposition  of  the  Swiss  commentator  Oltramare,  who 
puts  the  position  very  shortly  when  he  says  that  St.  Paul  is  speaking 
not  of  the  scheme  of  election  or  of  election  in  itself,  but  *  of  God's 
plan  for  the  salvation  of  mankind,  a  plan  which  proceeded  on  the 
principle  of  election.' 

It  is  true  that  commentators  who  have  adopted  this  view  (in 
particular  Beyschlag)  have  pressed  it  too  far,  and  have  used  it  to 
explain  or  explain  away  passages  to  which  it  will  not  apply ;  but  it 
undoubtedly  represents  the  main  lines  of  the  Apostle's  argument 
and  his  purpo»<^  throughout  these  chapters.     In  order  to  estimate 


S4t  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX-XI 

his  point  of  view  our  ftarting-point  must  be  the  conclusion  h« 
arrives  at.  This,  as  expressed  at  the  end  of  ch.  xi,  is  that  God 
wishes  to  show  His  mercy  upon  all  alike ;  that  the  world  as  a  whole, 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  and  all  Israel,  will  come  into  the  Messianic 
Kingdom  and  be  saved ;  that  the  realization  of  this  end  is  a  mystery 
which  has  now  been  revealed,  and  that  all  this  shows  the  greatness 
of  the  Divine  wisdom  ;  a  wisdom  which  is  guiding  all  things  to  their 
final  consummation  by  methods  and  in  ways  which  we  can  only 
partially  follow. 

The  question  at  issue  which  leads  St  Paul  to  assert  the  Divine 
purpose  is  the  fact  which  at  this  lime  had  become  apparent ;  Israel 
as  a  nation  was  rejected  from  the  Christian  Church.  If  faith  in 
the  Messiah  was  to  be  the  condition  of  salvation,  then  the  mass  erf 
the  Jews  were  clearly  excluded.  The  earlier  stages  of  the  argu- 
ment have  been  sufficiently  explained.  Sl  Paul  first  proves  (ix. 
6-29)  that  in  this  rejection  God  had  been  neither  untrue  to  His 
promise  nor  unjust.  He  then  proves  (ix.  30-x.  13)  that  the  Israelites 
were  themselves  guilty,  for  they  had  rejected  the  Messiah,  although 
they  had  had  full  and  complete  knowledge  of  His  message,  and 
full  warning.  But  yet  there  is  a  third  aspect  from  which  the 
rejection  of  Israel  may  be  regarded — that  of  the  Divine  purpose. 
What  has  been  the  result  of  this  rejection  of  Israel?  It  has  led  to 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles, — this  is  an  historical  fact,  and  guided 
by  it  we  can  see  somewhat  further  into  the  future.  Here  is 
a  case  where  St.  Paul  can  remember  how  different  had  been  the 
result  of  his  own  failure  from  what  he  had  expected.  He  can  appeal 
to  his  own  experience.  There  was  a  day,  still  vividly  before  his 
mind,  when  in  the  Pisidian  Antioch,  full  of  bitterness  and  a  sense 
of  defeat,  he  had  uttered  those  memorable  words  '  from  henceforth 
we  will  go  to  the  Gentiles.'  This  had  seemed  at  the  moment  a  con- 
fession that  his  work  was  not  being  accomplished.  Now  he  can  see 
the  Divine  purpose  fulfilled  in  the  creation  of  the  great  Gentile 
churches,  and  arguing  from  his  own  experience  in  this  one  case, 
where  God's  purpose  has  been  signally  vindicated,  he  looks 
forward  into  the  future  and  believes  that,  by  ways  other  than  we 
can  follow,  God  is  working  out  that  eternal  purpose  which  is  part 
of  the  revelation  he  has  to  announce,  the  reconciliation  of  the  world 
to  Himself  in  Christ.  He  concludes  therefore  with  this  ascription 
of  praise  to  God  for  His  wisdom  and  mercy,  emphasizing  the 
belief  which  is  at  once  the  conclusion  and  the  logicail  basis  of  kii 
argument 

St.  PauVs  Philosophy  0f  History. 

The  argument  then  of  this  section  of  the  Epistle  it  not  %  dis* 
cuftsion  of  the  principles  on  which  grace  is  given  to  mankind,  but 
a  philosophy  of  History.     In  tlv;  short  concluding  doxology  te 


IX-ZI.]   MERCY  TO  ALL  GODS   ULTIMATE  PURPOSE    343 

the  Epistle — a  conclusion  which  sums  up  the  thought  which 
underlies  so  much  of  the  previous  argument — St.  Paul  speaks  of 
the  mystery  which  has  been  kept  silent  in  eternal  times,  but  is 
now  revealed,  '  the  Counsel,'  as  Dr.  Hort  (in  Lft.  Biblical  Essays, 
p.  335)  expresses  it,  '  of  the  far-seeing  God,  the  Ruler  of  ages  or 
periods,  by  which  the  mystery  kept  secret  from  ancient  times  is 
laid  open  in  the  Gospel  for  the  knowledge  and  faith  of  all  nations.' 
So  again  in  Eph.  i.  4-1 1  he  speaks  of  the  foreknowledge  and  plan 
which  God  had  before  the  foundation  of  the  world ;  a  plan  which 
has  now  been  revealed:  the  manifestation  of  His  goodness  to 
all  the  nations  of  the  world.  St.  Paul  therefore  sees  a  plan  or 
purpose  in  history ;  in  fact  he  has  a  philosophy  of  History.  The 
characteristics  of  this  theory  we  propose  shortly  to  sum  up. 

(i)  From  Rom.  v.  la  flF.  we  gather  that  St.  Paul  divides  history 
into  three  periods  represented  typically  by  Adam,  Moses,  Christ, 
excluding  the  period  before  the  Fall,  which  may  be  taken  to  typify 
an  ideal  rather  than  to  describe  an  actual  historical  period.  Of  these 
the  first  period  represents  a  state  not  of  innocence  but  of  ignorance. 
'  Until  the  Law,  i.  e.  from  Adam  to  Moses,  sin  was  in  the  world  ; 
but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law.'  It  is  a  period  which 
might  be  represented  to  us  by  the  most  degraded  savage  tribes. 
If  sin  represents  failure  to  attain  an  ideal,  they  are  sinful ;  but  if 
sin  represents  guilt,  they  cannot  be  condemned,  or  at  any  rate  only 
to  a  very  slight  degree  and  extent.  Now  if  God  deals  with 
men  in  such  a  condition,  how  does  He  do  so  ?  The  answer  is,  by 
the  Revelation  of  Law;  in  the  case  of  the  Jewish  people,  by 
the  Revelation  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  Now  this  revelation  of  Law, 
with  the  accompanying  and  implied  idea  of  judgement,  has 
fulfilled  certain  functions.  It  has  in  the  first  place  convicted  man 
of  sin ;  it  has  shown  him  the  inadequacy  of  his  life  and  conduct. 
'  For  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said,  Thou  shall 
not  lust'  It  has  taught  him  the  diflference  between  right  and 
wrong,  and  made  him  feel  the  desire  for  a  higher  life.  And  so, 
secondly,  it  has  been  the  schoolmaster  leading  men  to  Christ.  It 
has  been  the  method  by  which  mankind  has  been  disciplined,  by 
which  they  have  been  gradually  prepared  and  educated.  And 
thirdly.  Law  has  taught  men  their  weakness.  The  ideal  is  there , 
the  desire  to  attain  it  is  there ;  a  struggle  to  attain  it  begins,  and 
that  struggle  convinces  us  of  our  own  weakness  and  of  the  power  of 
sin  over  us.  We  not  only  learn  a  need  for  higher  ideals ;  we  learn 
also  the  need  we  have  for  a  more  powerful  helper.  This  is  the 
discipline  of  Law,  and  it  prepares  the  way  for  the  higher  and 
fuller  revelation  of  the  Gospel. 

These  three  stages  are  represented  for  us  typically,  and  most 
clearly  in  the  history  <rf  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Even  here  of 
course  there  is  an  element  of  inexactness  in  them.    There  wa« 


544  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMAN!  X-XL 

a  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong  before  Moses,  there  was  an 

increase  in  knowledge  after  him ;  but  yet  the  stages  do  definitely 
exist.  And  they  may  be  found  also  running  through  the  whole  of 
history ;  they  are  not  confined  to  the  Jewish  people.  The  stage  ol 
primitive  ignorance  is  one  through  which  presumably  every  race 
of  men  has  passed  ;  some  in  fact  have  not  yet  passed  beyond  it : 
but  there  has  been  progress  upwards,  and  the  great  principle 
which  has  accompanied  and  made  possible  that  progress  is  Law. 
The  idea  of  Law  in  St.  Paul  is  clearly  not  exhausted  in  the  Jewish 
law,  although  that  of  course  is  the  highest  example  of  it.  All 
peoples  have  been  under  law  in  some  form.  It  is  a  great  holy 
beneficent  pilhciple,  but  yet  it  is  one  which  may  become  a  burden. 
It  is  represented  by  the  law  of  the  conscience ;  it  is  witnessed  by 
the  moral  judgements  which  men  have  in  all  ages  passed  on  one 
another  ;  it  is  embodied  in  codes  and  ordinances  and  bodies  of  law ; 
it  is  that  in  fact  which  distinguishes  for  men  the  difference  between 
right  and  wrong.  The  principle  has  worked,  or  is  working, 
among  mankind  everywhere,  and  is  meant  to  be  the  preparation  of, 
as  it  creates  the  need  for,  the  highest  revelation,  that  of  the  Gospel. 
(2)  These  three  stages  represent  the  first  point  in  St.  Paul's 
scheme  of  history.  A  second  point  is  the  idea  of  Election  or 
Selection,  or  rati  er  that  of  the  '  Purpose  of  God  which  worketh 
by  Selection.'  God  did  not  will  to  redeem  mankind  '  by  a  nod ' 
as  He  might  have  done,  for  that,  as  Athanasius  puts  it,  would  be  to 
undo  the  work  of  creation ;  but  He  accepts  the  human  conditions 
which  He  has  created  and  uses  them  that  the  world  may  work  out 
its  own  salvation.  So,  as  St.  Paul  feels,  He  has  selected  Israel  to 
be  His  chosen  people;  they  have  become  the  depositary  of  Divine 
truth  and  revelation,  that  through  them,  when  the  fulness  of  time 
has  come,  the  world  may  receive  Divine  knowledge.  This  is  clearly 
the  conception  underlying  St.  Paul's  teaching,  and  looking  back  from 
the  vantage  ground  of  History  we  can  see  how  true  it  is.  To  use 
modern  phraseology,  an  '  ethical  monotheism  '  has  been  taught  the 
world  through  the  Jewish  race  and  through  it  alone.  And  St.  Paul's 
principle  may  be  extended  further.  He  himself  speaks  of  the  *  fulness 
of  time,'  and  it  is  no  unreal  philosophy  to  believe  that  the  purpose 
of  God  has  shown  itself  in  selecting  other  nations  also  for  excel- 
lence in  other  directions,  in  art,  in  commerce,  in  science,  in  states- 
manship; that  the  Roman  Empire  was  built  up  in  order  to 
create  a  sphere  in  which  the  message  of  the  Incarnation  might 
work ;  that  the  same  purpose  has  guided  the  Church  in  the 
centuries  which  have  followed.  An  historian  like  Renan  would 
tell  us  that  the  freer  development  of  the  Christian  Church  was  only 
made  possible  by  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  divorce  from 
Judaism.  History  tells  us  how  the  Arian  persecutions  occasioned 
the  conversion  of  the  Gotbt,  and  how  the  division  of  the  Church 


IX-XI.]  MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE    345 

at  the  schism  of  East  and  West,  or  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
occasioned  new  victories  for  Christianity.  Again  and  again  an  event 
which  to  contemporaries  must  have  seemed  disastrous  has  worked 
out  beneficially ;  and  so,  guided  by  St.  Paul's  example,  we  learn  to 
trust  in  that  Divine  wisdom  and  mercy  which  in  some  cases  where 
we  can  follow  its  track  has  been  so  deeply  and  unexpectedly 
vindicated,  and  which  is  by  hypothesis  infinite  in  power  and 
wisdom  and  knowledge. 

(3)  These  then  are  two  main  points  in  St.  Paul's  teaching ;  first, 
the  idea  of  gradual  progress  upwards  implied  in  the  stages  of  Adam, 
Moses,  Christ ;  secondly,  the  idea  of  a  purpose  running  through 
history,  a  purpose  working  by  means  of  Selection.  But  to  what 
end  r  The  end  is  looked  at  under  a  twofold  aspect ;  it  is  the 
completion  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  and  the  exhibition  of  the 
Divine  mercy.  In  describing  the  completion  of  the  Messianic 
Kingdom,  St,  Paul  uses,  as  in  all  his  eschatological  passages,  the 
forms  and  phrases  of  the  Apocalyptic  literature  of  his  time,  but 
reasons  have  been  given  for  thinking  that  he  interpreted  them,  at 
any  rate  to  a  certain  extent,  in  a  spiritual  manner.  Ther^  is  per- 
haps a  further  diflSculty,  or  at  any  rate  it  may  be  argued  that  St.  Paul 
is  mistaken  as  regards  the  Jews,  in  that  he  clearly  expected  that  at 
some  time  not  very  remote  they  would  return  to  the  Messianic  King- 
dom ;  yet  nothing  has  yet  happened  which  makes  this  expectation 
any  more  probable.  We  may  argue  in  reply  that  so  far  as  therfi 
was  any  mistaken  expectation,  it  was  of  the  nearness  of  the  last  timea 
and  that  the  definite  limit  fixed  by  St.  Paul, '  until  the  fulness  of  the 
Gentiles  come  in,'  has  not  yet  been  reached.  But  it  is  better  to 
go  deeper,  and  to  ask  whether  it  is  not  the  case  that  the  rejection 
of  the  Jews  now  as  then  fulfils  a  purpose  in  the  Divine  plan  ? 
The  well-known  answer  to  the  question,  '  What  is  the  chief  argu- 
ment for  Christianity  ? ' — '  the  Jews ' — reminds  us  of  the  continued 
existence  of  that  strange  race,  living  as  sojourners  among  men, 
the  ever-present  witnesses  to  a  remote  past  which  is  connected  by 
our  beliefs  intimately  with  the  present.  By  their  traditions  to 
which  they  cHng,  by  the  O.  T.  Scriptures  which  they  preserve  by 
an  independent  chain  of  evidence,  by  their  hopes,  and  by  their 
highest  aspirations,  they  are  a  living  witness  to  the  truth  of  that 
which  they  reject.  They  have,  their  purpose  still  to  fulfil  m  the 
Divine  plan. 

St.  Paul's  final  explanation  of  the  purpose  of  God — the  exhi- 
bition of  the  Divine  mercy — suggests  the  solution  of  another  class 
of  questions.  In  all  such  speculations  there  is  indeed  a  diffi.:ulty, 
— the  constant  sense  of  the  hmitations  of  human  language  as 
applied  to  what  is  Divine ;  and  St.  Paul  wishes  us  to  feel  these 
limitations,  for  again  and  again  he  uses  such  expressions  as 
'  I  speak  as  a  man.'     But  yet  granting  this,  ttie  thought  does 


34^  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX-XL 

supply  a  solution  of  many  problems.  Why  does  God  allow  sin  ? 
Why  does  He  shut  up  men  under  sin  ?  It  is  that  ultimately  He 
may  exhibit  the  depths  of  His  Divine  mercy.  We  may  feel  that 
some  such  scheme  of  the  course  of  history  as  was  sketched  out 
above  explains  for  us  much  that  is  difficult,  but  yet  we  always 
come  back  to  an  initial  question,  Why  does  God  allow  such  a  state 
of  affairs  to  exist  ?  We  may  grant  that  it  comes  from  the  free-will 
of  man ;  but  if  God  be  almighty  He  must  have  created  man  with 
that  free-will.  We  may  speak  of  His  limitation  of  His  own  powers, 
and  of  His  Redemption  of  man  without  violating  the  conditions  of 
human  hfe  and  nature;  but  if  He  be  almighty,  it  is  quite  clear 
that  He  could  have  prevented  all  sin  and  misery  by  a  single  act 
What  answer  can  we  make  ?  We  can  only  say,  as  St.  Paul  does, 
that  it  is  that  He  may  reveal  the  Divine  mercy ;  if  man  had  not  been 
created  so  as  to  need  this  mercy,  we  should  never  have  known  the 
Love  of  God  as  revealed  in  His  Son.  That  is  the  farthest  that 
our  speculations  may  legitimately  go. 

(4)  But  one  final  question.  What  evidence  does  St.  Paul  give 
for  a  belief  in  the  Divine  purpose  in  history  ?  It  is  twofold.  On 
the  one  hand,  within  the  limited  circle  of  our  own  knowledge  or 
experience,  we  can  see  that  things  have  unexpectedly  and  wonder- 
fully worked  out  so  as  to  indicate  a  purpose.  That  was  St.  Paul's 
experience  in  the  preaching  to  the  Gentiles.  Where  we  have  more 
perfect  knowledge  and  can  see  the  end,  there  we  see  God's  purpose 
working.  And  on  the  other  hand  our  hypothesis  is  a  God  of 
infinite  power  and  wisdom.  If  we  have  faith  in  this  intellectual 
conception,  we  believe  that,  where  we  cannot  understand,  our  failure 
arises  from  the  limitations  not  of  God's  power  and  will,  but  of  our 
own  intelligence. 

An  illustration  may  serve  to  bring  this  home.  We  can  read 
in  such  Jewish  books  as  4  Ezra  or  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  the 
bewilderment  and  confusion  of  mind  of  a  pious  Jew  at  the  fall 
of  Jerusalem.  Every  hope  and  aspiration  that  he  had  seems 
shattered.  But  looked  at  from  the  point  of  view  of  Christianity, 
and  the  wider  development  of  Christianity,  that  was  an  inevitable 
and  a  necessary  step  in  the  progress  of  the  Church.  If  we  believe 
in  a  Divine  purpose  in  history,  we  can  see  it  working  here  quite 
clearly.  Yet  to  many  a  contemporary  the  event  must  have  been 
inexplicable.  We  can  apply  the  argument  to  our  time.  In  the 
past,  where  we  can  trace  the  course  of  events,  we  have  evidence  of 
the  working  of  a  Divine  purpose,  and  so  in  the  present,  where  so 
much  is  obscure  and  dark,  we  can  believe  that  there  is  still  a  Divine 
purpose  working,  and  that  all  the  failures  and  misfortunes  and 
rebutfs  of  the  time  are  yet  steps  towards  a  higher  end.  Et  dixit 
ad  me  :  Inilio  terreni  orbis  et  antequam  starent  exitut  saeculi  .  .  .,  et 
ankquam  mvesiigareniur  praeseniet  OMMt,  et  antequam  abaUenartniur 


IX-XI.]   MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE  347 

torum  gut  nunc  peccant  adinventiones  et  consignati  essent  qui  fidi 
thesaurizavcrunt :  tunc  cogiiavi  ei  facia  sunt  per  me  solum  et  non 
per  alium,  ui  et  finis  per  nu  et  non  per  cUium  (4  Ezra  vi.  1-6). 


Tk4  Salvation  of  the  Individual.    Free-will  and 
Predestination. 

While  the  '  Nationalist '  interpretation  of  these  chapters  has  been 
adopted,  it  has  at  the  same  time  been  pointed  out  that,  although  it 
correctly  represents  St.  Paul's  line  of  argument,  it  cannot  be  legiti- 
mately used  as  it  has  been  to  evade  certain  difficulties  which  have 
been  always  felt  as  to  his  language.  St.  Paul's  main  line  of  argu- 
ment applies  to  nations  and  peoples,  but  it  is  quite  clear  that  the 
language  of  ix.  19-23  applies  and  is  intended  to  apply  equally  to 
individuals.  Further  it  is  impossible  to  say,  as  Beyschlag  does,  that 
there  is  no  idea  in  the  Apostle's  mind  of  a  purpose  before  time.  It 
18  God's  purpose  '  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  *  which  is 
being  expounded.  And  again,  it  is  quite  true  to  say  that  the 
election  is  primarily  an  election  to  privilege ;  yet  there  is  a  very 
intimate  connexion  between  privilege  and  eternal  salvation,  and 
the  language  of  ix.  22,  23  'fitted  unto  destruction,'  'prepared  unto 
glory,'  cannot  be  limited  to  a  merely  earthly  destiny.  Two  ques- 
tions then  still  remain  to  be  answered.  What  theory  is  implied 
in  St.  Paul's  language  concerning  the  hope  and  future  of  individuals 
whether  Christian  or  unbelievers,  and  what  theory  is  implied  as  to 
the  relation  between  Divine  foreknowledge  and  human  free-will  ? 

We  have  deliberately  used  the  expression  '  what  theory  is 
implied?';  for  St.  Paul  never  formally  discusses  either  of  these 
questions ;  he  never  gives  a  definite  answer  to  either,  and  on  both 
he  makes  statements  which  appear  inconsistent.  Future  salvation 
is  definitely  connected  with  privilege,  and  the  two  are  often 
looked  at  as  effect  and  cause.  '  If  while  we  were  enemies  we 
were  reconciled  to  God  through  the  death  of  His  Son,  much 
more  being  reconciled  shall  we  be  saved  by  His  life'  (v.  10). 
'  Whom  He  called,  them  He  also  justified :  and  whom  He  justified, 
them  He  also  glorified '  (viiL  30).  But,  although  the  assurance  oif 
hope  is  given  by  the  Divine  call,  it  is  not  irrevocable.  '  By  their 
unbelief  they  were  broken  ofl^  and  thou  standest  by  thy  faith.  Be 
not  highminded,  but  fear:  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural 
branches,  neither  will  He  spare  thee'  (xi.  20,  21).  Nor  again  is 
future  salvation  to  be  confined  to  those  who  possess  external 
privileges.  The  statement  is  laid  down,  in  quite  an  unqualified 
way,  that  'glory  and  honour  and  peace 'come  'to  everyone  that 
worketh  good,  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek'  (ii.  10). 
Again,  there  is  no  definite  and  unqualified  statement  either  m 


3^8  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IZ-XI. 

support  of  or  against  universalism ;  on  the  one  side  we  have 
statements  such  as  those  in  a  later  Epistle  (i  Tim.  ii.  4)  'God  our 
Saviour,  who  willeth  that  all  men  should  be  saved  and  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth';  or  again, 'He  has  shut  allup  to  disobedience, 
but  that  He  might  have  mercy  upon  all '  (Rom.  xi.  32).  On  the 
other  side  there  is  a  strong  assertion  of '  wrath  in  the  day  of  wrath 
and  revelation  of  the  righteous  judgement  of  God,  who  will  rendei 
to  every  man  according  to  his  works ;  .  . .  unto  them  that  are  fac- 
tious and  obey  not  the  truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  wrath  and 
indignation,  tribulation  and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man  that 
worketh  evil '  (ii.  5-9).  St.  Paul  asserts  both  the  goodness  and  the 
severity  of  God.  He  does  not  attempt  to  reconcile  them,  nor  need 
we.  He  lays  down  very  clearly  and  definitely  the  fact  of  the  Divine 
judgement,  and  he  brings  out  prominently  three  characteristics  of  it: 
that  it  is  in  accordance  with  works,  or  perhaps  more  correctly  on 
the  basis  of  works,  that  is  of  a  man's  whole  Ufe  and  career ;  that  it 
will  be  exercised  by  a  Judge  of  absolute  impartiality,— there  is  no 
respect  of  persons ;  and  that  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  oppor- 
tunities which  a  man  has  enjoyed.  For  the  rest  we  must  leave  the 
solution,  as  he  would  have  done,  to  that  wisdom  and  knowledge 
and  mercy  of  God  of  which  he  speaks  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh 
chapter. 

There  is  an  equal  inconsistency  in  St.  Paul's  language  regarding 
Divine  sovereignty  and  human  responsibility.  Ch.  ix  implies  argu- 
ments which  take  away  Free-will ;  ch.  x  is  meaningless  without  the 
presupposition  of  Free-will.  And  such  apparent  inconsistency  of 
language  and  ideas  pervades  all  St.  Paul's  Epistles.  *  Work  out  your 
own  salvation,  for  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
of  His  good  pleasure '  (Phil.  ii.  12, 13).  Contrast  again '  God  gave 
them  up  unto  a  reprobate  mind,'  and  '  wherefore  thou  art  without 
excuse '  (Rom.  i.  18 ;  ii.  i).  Now  two  explanations  of  this  language 
are  possible.  It  may  be  held  (as  does  Fritzsche,  see  p.  275)  that 
St.  Paul  is  unconscious  of  the  inconsistency,  and  that  it  arises 
from  his  inferiority  in  logic  and  philosophy,  or  (as  Meyer)  that  he 
is  in  the  habit  of  isolating  one  point  of  view,  and  looking  at  the 
question  from  that  point  of  view  alone.  This  latter  view  is  correct ; 
or  rather,  for  reasons  which  will  be  given  below,  it  can  be  held  and 
stated  more  strongly.  The  antinomy,  if  we  may  call  it  so,  of 
chaps,  ix  and  X  is  one  which  is  and  must  be  the  characteristic 
of  ^1  religious  thought  and  experience. 

(i)  That  St.  Paul  recognized  the  contradiction,  and  held  it 
consciously,  may  be  taken  as  proved  by  the  fact  that  his  view 
was  shared  by  that  sect  of  the  Jews  among  whom  he  had  been 
brought  up,  and  was  taught  in  those  schools  in  which  he  had 
been  instructed.  Josephus  tells  us  that  the  Pharisees  attributed 
everything  to  Fate  and  God,  but  that  yet  the  choice  of  right  and 


IX-XI.]   MERCY  TO  ALL  GOD'S  ULTIMATE  PURPOSE   349 

wrong  lay  with  men  {^apuraioi  .  .  ,  tlftapftivji  tv  koH  6w  npoirdirTown 
wavra  Koi  r^  flip  irpdrrtiv  ra  ducato,  Kal  fx^,  koto  to  nXtlcrroy  etrl  rots 
dvdpanoit   KticrOai,   &ot]deiv   hi    tls  tKacrrov  km   rifv  tlpapfievrjv  B.  J.   II. 

viii.  14;  comp.  Ant.  XIII.  v.  9  ;  XVIII.  i.  3) :  and  so  in  Pirqi Aboth, 
iii.  14  (p.  73  ed.  Taylor)  'Everything  is  foreseen;  and  free-will 
is  given :  and  the  world  is  judged  by  grace ;  and  everything  is 
according  to  work.'  (See  also  Ps.  Sol.  ix.  7  and  the  note  on 
Free-will  in  Ryle  and  James'  edition,  p.  96,  to  which  all  the  above 
references  are  due.)  St.  Paul  then  was  only  expanding  and  giving 
greater  meaning  to  the  doctrine  in  which  he  had  been  brought  up. 
He  had  inherited  it  but  he  deepened  it  He  was  more  deeply  con- 
scious of  the  mercy  of  God  in  calling  him ;  he  felt  more  deeply  the 
certainty  of  the  Divine  protection  and  guidance.  And  yet  the 
sense  of  personal  responsibility  was  in  an  equal  degree  intensified. 
'  But  I  press  forward,  if  so  be  I  may  apprehend,  seeing  that  also 
I  was  apprehended  by  Christ '  (Phil.  iii.  1 2). 

(a)  Nor  again  is  any  other  solution  consistent  with  the  reality 
of  religious  belief.  Religion,  at  any  rate  a  religion  based  on 
morality,  demands  two  things.  To  satisfy  our  intellectual  belief 
the  God  whom  we  believe  in  must  be  Almighty,  i.  e.  omnipotent 
and  omniscient ;  in  order  that  our  moral  hfe  may  be  real  our  Will 
must  be  free.  But  these  beliefs  are  not  in  themselves  consistent. 
If  God  be  Almighty  He  must  have  created  us  with  full  knowledge 
of  what  we  should  become,  and  the  responsibility  therefore  for 
what  we  are  can  hardly  rest  with  ourselves.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
our  Will  is  free,  there  is  a  department  where  God  (if  we  judge  the 
Divine  mind  on  the  analogy  of  human  minds)  cannot  have  created 
us  with  full  knowledge.  We  are  reduced  therefore  to  an  apparently 
irreconcilable  contradiction,  and  that  remains  the  language  of  all 
deeply  religious  minds.  We  are  free,  we  are  responsible  for  what  we 
do,  but  yet  it  is  God  that  worketh  all  things.  This  antithesis  is 
brought  out  very  plainly  by  Thomas  Aquinas.  God  he  asserts  is 
the  cause  of  everything  {J)eus  causa  est  »mnibus  operantibus  ut 
opermiur,  Cont.  Gent.  III.  Ixvii),  but  the  Divine  providence  does 
not  exclude  Free-wiU.  The  argument  is  interesting :  Adhuc  pro- 
videntia  est  multiplicativa  bonorum  in  rebus  gubernatis.  Illud  ergo 
per  quod  tnulta  bona  subtraherenlur  a  rebus^  nan  pertinet  ad  pro- 
videntiam.  Si  autem  libertas  voluntatis  iolUretur,  multa  bona  sub- 
traherenlur. Tolleretur  enim  laus  virtutis  humanae,  quae  nulla  esl 
si  homo  libere  non  agit,  tolleretur  enim  iustitia  praemiantis  et  punientis. 
si  non  libere  homo  ageret  bonum  et  malum,  cessaret  etiam  circum- 
spectio  in  consiliis,  quae  de  his  quae  in  necessitate  agunlur,  frustrtt 
fractarenlur,  esset  igitur  contra  frovidentiae  rationem  si  subtraheretur 
voluntatis  libertcu  [ib.  Ixxiii).  And  he  sums  up  the  whole  relation 
of  God  to  natural  causes,  elsewhere  showing  how  this  same 
prindpl*  applies  to  the  human  will :  pate/  etiam  quod  non  sic  idem 


35©  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [IX-XI. 

effcctus  causae  naturali  tt  divtnae  virtuti  attribuitur ,  quasi  partitn 
a  Deo,  partim  a  naturali  agenli  fiat,  ted  totus  ab  utroque  secundum 
alium  modum,  sicut  idem  ejfectus  totus  attribuitur  instrumento,  et 
principali  agenti  etiam  totus  [ib.  Ixx).  See  also  Summa  Theologicu, 
Pars  Prima,  cv.  art.  5  ;  Prima  Secundae,  cxiii). 

This  ia  tnbstantially  also  the  riew  taken  by  Moiley,  On  iAt  Augustiman 
Doctrine  of  Predestination.  The  result  of  his  argument  it  summed  up  as 
follows,  pp.  326,  327:  '  Upon  this  abstract  idea,  then,  of  the  Divine  Power,  M 
an  unlimited  power,  rose  up  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  Predestination  and 
good  ;  while  upon  the  abstract  idea  of  Free-will,  ai  an  unlimited  faculty, 
rose  up  the  Pelagian  theory.  Had  men  perceived,  indeed,  more  clearly  and 
really  than  they  have  done,  their  ignorance  as  human  creatures,  and  the 
relation  in  which  the  human  reason  stands  to  the  great  truths  involved  in 
this  question,  they  might  have  saved  themselvei  the  trouble  of  this  whole 
controversy.  They  would  have  seen  that  this  question  cannot  be  determined 
absolutely,  one  way  or  another;  that  it  lies  between  two  great  contradictory 
truths,  neither  of  which  can  be  set  aside,  or  made  to  give  way  to  the  other ; 
two  opposing  tendencies  of  thought,  inherent  in  the  human  mind,  which  go 
on  side  by  side,  and  are  able  to  be  held  and  maintained  together,  although 
thus  opposite  to  each  other,  because  they  are  only  incipient,  and  not  final 
and  complete  truths; — the  great  truths,  I  mean,  of  the  Divine  Power  on  the 
one  side,  and  man's  Free-will,  or  his  originality  as  an  agent,  on  the  other. 
And  this  is  in  fact,  the  mode  in  which  this  question  is  settled  by  the  practical 
common-sense  of  mankind.  .  .  .  The  plain  natural  reason  of  mankind  is  thus 
always  large  and  comprehensive  ;  not  afraid  of  inconsistency,  but  admitting 
all  truth  which  presents  itself  to  its  notice.  It  is  only  when  minds  begin  to 
philosophize  that  they  grow  narrow, — that  there  begins  to  be  felt  the  appeal 
to  consistency,  and  with  it  the  temptation  to  exclude  truths.' 

(3)  We  can  but  state  the  two  sides ;  we  cannot  solve  the  problem. 
But  yet  there  is  one  conception  in  which  the  solution  lies.  It  is  in 
a  complete  realization  of  what  we  mean  by  asserting  that  God  is 
Almighty.  The  two  ideas  of  Free-will  and  the  Divine  sovereignty 
cannot  be  reconciled  in  our  own  mind,  but  that  does  not  prevent 
them  from  being  reconcilable  in  God's  mind.  We  are  really 
measuring  Him  by  our  own  intellectual  standard  if  we  think 
otherwise.  And  so  our  solution  of  the  problem  of  Free-will,  and 
of  the  problems  of  history  and  of  individual  salvation,  must  finally 
lie  in  the  full  acceptance  and  realization  of  what  is  implied  by  the 
infinity  and  the  omniscience  of  God. 


THE  NEW  LIFB. 

XII.  1,  a.  With  this  wonderful  programme  of  salvation 
before  you  offer  to  God  a  sacrifice,  not  of  slaughtered  beasts, 
but  of  your  living  selves,  your  own  bodies,  pure  and  free 
from  blemish,  your  spiritual  service.     Do  not  take  pattern 


Xn.  I.]  THE   NEW  LIFE  351 

by  the  age  in  which  you  livty  but  undergo  complete  moral 
reformation  with  the  will  of  God  for  your  standard. 

XII-XV.  12.  We  now  reach  the  concluding  portion  of  the 
Epistle,  that  devoted  to  the  practical  application  of  the  previous 
discussion.  An  equally  marked  division  between  the  theoretical 
and  the  practical  portion  is  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
(chap,  iv) ;  and  one  similar,  although  not  so  strongly  marked,  in 
Galatians  (v.  i  or  a) ;  Colossians  (iii.  i) ;  i  Thessalonians  (iv.  i) ; 
a  Thessalonians  (iii.  6).  A  comparison  with  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  John  will  show  how  special  a  characteristic  of  St. 
Paul  is  this  method  of  construction.  The  main  idea  running 
through  the  whole  section  seems  to  be  that  of  peace  and  unity  for 
the  Church  in  all  relations  both  internal  and  external.  As  St.  Paul 
in  the  earlier  portion  of  the  Epistle,  looking  back  on  the  controversies 
through  which  he  has  passed,  solves  the  problems  which  had  been 
presented  in  the  interests  no  longer  of  victory,  but  of  peace,  so  in 
his  practical  exhortation  he  lays  the  foundation  of  unity  and 
harmony  on  deep  and  broad  principles.  A  definite  division  may 
be  made  between  chaps,  xii,  xiii,  in  which  the  exhortations  are 
general  in  character,  and  xiv-xv.  la,  in  which  they  arise  directly 
out  of  the  controversies  which  are  disturbing  the  Church.  Yet 
even  these  are  treated  from  a  general  point  of  view,  and  not  in 
relation  to  any  special  circumstances.  In  the  first  section,  the 
Apostle  does  not  appear  to  follow  any  definite  logical  order,  but 
touches  on  each  subject  as  it  suggests  itself  or  is  suggested  by  the 
previous  ideas ;  it  may  be  roughly  divided  as  follows :  (i)  a  general 
introduction  on  the  character  of  the  Christian  life  (xii.  i,  a) ;  (ii) 
the  right  use  of  spiritual  gifts  especially  in  relation  to  Church 
order  (3-8) ;  (iii)  a  series  of  maxims  mainly  illustrating  the  great 
principle  of  ayoTn;  (9-ai);  (iv)  duties  towards  rulers  and  those  in 
authority  (xiii.  1-7) ;  (v)  a  special  exhortation  to  ayanri,  as  including 
all  other  commandments  (8-10) ;  (vi)  an  exhortation  to  a  spiritua' 
life  on  the  ground  of  the  near  approach  of  the  irapowia  (11-14). 

Tertollian  qnotes  the  following  verses  of  this  chapter  from  Maxcion :  9,  lOc , 
la,  14b,  i6b,  17a,  18,  19.  There  is  no  evidence  that  any  portion  wa< 
omitted,  but  ver.  18  may  have  stood  after  ver.  19,  and  in  the  latfer  ftypaimu 
is  naturally  cut  off  and  a  yip  inserted.  The  other  variations  n  Dted  by  Zaho 
seem  less  certain  (Zahn,  Gtsckichtt  dts  N.  T.  Kanous,  p.  518;  Tert.  ado. 
Marc.  T.  14;. 

1.  -irapanaXw  o8i».  A  regular  formula  in  St.  Paul :  Eph.  iv.  i ; 
(  Tim.  'i.  I  ;  i  Cor  iv.  16.  As  in  the  passage  in  the  Ephesians, 
'he  o3»'  refers  not  so  much  to  what  immediately  precedes  as  to  the 
result  of  the  whole  previous  argument.  '  As  you  are  justified  by 
Christ,  aad  put  in  a  new  relation  to  God,  I  exhort  you  to  live  in 
accordance  with  that  relation.'    But  although  St.  Paul  is  giving  thf 


35»  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XII.  I 

practical  results  of  his  whole  previous  argument,  yet  (as  often  with 
him,  cf.  xi.  ii)  the  words  are  directly  led  up  to  by  the  conclusion 
of  the  previous  chapter  and  the  narration  of  the  wisdom  and 
mercy  of  God. 

8id  Twr  oiKTipfiwi'  Tou  eeoC.  Cf.  2  Cor.  i.  3  ^  irarTjp  r&p  oucripuSiv. 
OlKTipfiot  in  the  singular  only  occurs  once  (Col.  iii.  la);  the  plural 
is  a  Hebraism  directly  derived  from  the  LXX  (Ps.  cxviii.  156  ol 
oiKTipfioi  aov  TToXXoi,  Kvpif,  a-(b6dpa).  There  is  a  reference  to  the 
preceding  chapter, '  As  God  has  been  so  abundantly  merciful  to 
both  Jews  and  Greeks,  offer  a  sacrifice  to  Him,  and  let  that  sacrifice 
be  one  that  befits  His  holiness.* 

irapaoTTJo-oi:  a  tech.  term  (although  not  in  the  O.T.)  for  presenting 

a  sacrifice  :  cf.  Jos.  An/.  IV.  vi.  4  tiu>pL0vs  rt  (KeXtvarty  inra  Sflpaadat 
Tov  ^aaiXea,   Koi  Toaovrovs  ravpovs  Kai   koiovs  irapa(rrfjvai.      The  WOrd 

means  to  '  place  beside,'  *  present '  for  any  purpose,  and  so  is  used 
of  the  presentation  of  Christ  in  the  temple  (Luke  ii.  22),  of  St. 
Paul  presenting  his  converts  (Col.  i.  28),  or  Christ  presenting 
His  Church  (Eph.  v.  27),  or  of  the  Christian  himself  (cf.  Rom. 
vi.  13  ff.).  In  all  these  instances  the  idea  of  '  offering  '  (which 
is  one  part  of  sacrifice)  is  present. 

T&  atSfiara  ifiwr.  To  be  taken  literally,  like  ra  fiiXfi  vfi&p  in  tL  13, 
as  is  shown  by  the  contrast  with  tov  vo6i  in  ver.  a.  '  Just  as  the 
sacrifice  in  all  ancient  religions  must  be  clean  and  without  blemish, 
so  we  must  offer  bodies  to  God  which  are  holy  and  free  from  the 
stains  of  passion.'  Christianity  does  not  condemn  the  body,  but 
demands  that  the  body  shall  be  purified  and  be  united  with  Christ. 
Our  members  are  to  be  oTrXa  iiKaioa-vvris  r^  e*y  (vi.  13) ;  our  bodies 
{ra  troifiaTa)  are  to  be  n«\r]  Xpurrov  (i  Cor.  vi.  1 5);  they  are  the 
temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (;'3.  ver.  19);  we  are  to  be  pure  both  in 
body  and  in  spirit  {tb.  vii.  34). 

There  it  tome  doubt  as  to  the  order  of  the  wordi  tvApttrrw  r^  6«^. 
They  occur  in  this  order  in  K'BDEFGLand  later  MSS.,  Syir.  Boh.  Sah., 
and  Fathers;  tw  0tM  ti.  in  KAP,  Vulg.  The  former  is  the  more  usual 
expression,  but  St.  Paul  may  have  written  ry  ©«y  tv.  to  prevent  ambiguity, 
for  if  Tq>  8(f)  comes  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  there  is  aome  doubt  as  to 
whether  it  should  not  be  taken  with  itapaarrjaai. 

Guo'ioi'  IficKxv  :  cf.  vi.  1 3  irapauTTjaaT*  tavrovs  rto  &f^,  «><r«i  c'x  PtmpStt 
(avras.  The  bodies  presented  will  be  those  of  men  to  whom  new- 
ness of  life  has  been  gixfin,  by  union  with  the  risen  Christ.  The 
relation  to  the  Jewish  rite  is  partly  one  of  distinction,  partly  of 
analogy.  The  Jewish  sacrifice  implies  slaughter,  the  Christian 
continued  activity  and  life  ;  but  as  in  the  Jewish  rite  all  ritual 
requirements  must  be  fulfilled  to  make  the  sacrifice  acceptable  to 
God,  so  in  the  Christian  sacrifice  our  bodies  must  be  holy,  without 
spot  or  blemish. 

Ayiut,  '  pure,' '  holy/  '  free  from  stain,'  i  Pet.  i.  16  ;  Lev.  xix.  t. 


XII.  1,  a.]  THE   NEW  LIFE  353 

So  the  offering  of  the  Gentiles  (Rom.  xv.  i6)  is  rtywrftivii  iv  Up,  'Ay. 
(See  on  L  7.) 

cudpeoTOy  Ty  ©tu:  cf.  Phil.  iv.  18  it^dfitvos  naph  'Ena(f)pobiTov  ra 
nap"  ipS)v,  6<Tfi^v  tiaSiaifdvaiav  dfKrfjv,  (vapfarop  toj  ©fw  :  Rom.  xiv.  1 8 

*  Well-pleasing  to  God.'     The  formal  sacrifices  of  the  old  covenant 
might  not  be  acceptable  to  God  :  cf.  Ps.  li.  16,  17 

tJ)k  XoyiK^K  XarpeiaK  fijiwi*.  Ace.  in  apposition  to  the  idea  of  the 
sentence.  Winer,  §  lix.  9,  p.  669,  E.  T. :  cf.  i  Tim.  ii.  6  and  the 
note  on  viii.  3  above.  A  service  to  God  such  as  befits  the  reason 
(Xo'yoy),  i.  e.  a  spiritual  sacrifice  and  not  the  offering  of  an  irrational 
animal :  cf.  i  Pet.  ii.  5.  The  writer  of  Tesf.  XII.  Pat.  Levi  3 
seems  to  combine  a  reminiscence  of  this  passage  with  Phil.  iv.  18: 
speaking  of  the  angels,  he  says  npoa<f>fpov<Ti  di  Kvpi<f  6<Tp,^p  tia8ias 

XoyiKTjv  KoX  avalpMKTOv  npo<T(f)opav, 

We  may  notice  the  metaphorical  use  St.  Paul  makes  of  sacrificial 
language:  eVl  r^  6v<ri<f  koI  Xftrovpytg  TTJs  nlcrTfois  ip.S>v  Phil.  ii.  17  J 
oafjLTi  evaStar  (Lev.  i.  9)  Phil.  iv.  18;  ocr/i^  8  Cor.  ii.  14,  16;  Xfe- 
Tovpy6s,  Upovpyovvra,  7rpotr(popd  Rom.  XV.  16.  This  language  passed 
gradually  and  almost  imperceptibly  into  liturgical  use,  and  hence 
acquired  new  shades  of  meaning  (see  esp.  Lightfoot,  Clement,  L 
p.  386  sq.). 

There  is  •  preponderance  of  eridence  in  faronr  of  the  imperatives  (avaxt- 
ftari^taOi,  (UTap-ofxpovaOi)  in  this  verse,  B  L  P  all  the  versions  (Latt.  Boh. 
Syrr.),  and  most  Fathers,  against  AD  F  G  (X  varies  1.  The  evidence  of  the 
Versions  and  of  the  Fathers,  some  of  whom  paraphrase,  is  particolarly 
important,  as  it  removes  the  suspicion  of  itacism. 

2.  auorxTifiaTiteffOc . . .  |jicTa|xop<|>oGa9e,  '  Do  not  adopt  the  external 
and  fleeting  fashion  of  this  world,  but  be  ye  transformed  in  your 
inmost  nature.'  On  the  distinction  of  trxnyM  and  popf^ii  preserved  in 
these  compounds  see  Lightfoot,  Journal  of  Classical  and  Sacred 
Philology,  vol.  iii.  1857,  p.  \\\,Philipptans,  p.  125.  Comp.  Chrys. 
ad  loc,  *  He  says  not  change  the  fashion,  but  be  transformed,  to 
show  that  the  world's  ways  are  a  fashion,  but  virtue's  not  a  fash- 
ion, but  a  kind  of  realy^^r/;/,  with  a  natural  beauty  of  its  own, 
not  needing  the  trickeries  and  fashions  of  outward  things,  which 
no  sooner  appear  than  they  go  to  naught.  For  all  these  things, 
even  before  they  come  to  light,  are  dissolving.  If  then  thou 
throwest  the  fashion  aside,  thou  wilt  speedily  come  to  the  form.' 

Tw  oiciKi  toJt^,  'this  world,'  'this  life/  used  in  a  moral  sense. 
When  the  idea  of  a  future  Messianic  age  became  a  part  of  the 
Jewish  Theology,  Time,  xp°^°^i  was  looked  upon  as  divided  into 
a  succession  of  ages,  aitoi/e?,  periods  or  cycles  of  great  but  limited 
duration;  and  the  present  age  was  contrasted  with  the  age  to 
come,  or  the  age  of  the  Messiah  (cf  Schtirer,  §  29.  9),  a  contrast 
very  common  among  early  Christians:  Matt.  xii.  32  ovn  iv  tovt^ 
T^  cuMPi  oSn  iv  Tf  fiiXkoPTi :  Luc.  XX.  34,  35   o(  viaH  rov  alavos  rovrov 


354  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XII.  S 

.  .  .  el  it  Kara^KinBivTtt  rav  cuSivos  tKtivav  tvx*^*  '  Eph.  L  1 1  •£  fu(wM>  if 
ra  alwvi  tovtu)  dWa  Koi  iv  roJ  fiikkovru  So  Enoch  XVi.  I  fn'xp^t  flfitaat 
TtXtioorTKos  TTJs   Kpi<Tfa)s  T^t  n*yaXr]t,  tw  ^  6  alay  6  fUyas  rt\Kr6T)<TtT<u. 

As  the  tlistinciion  between  the  present  period  and  the  future  was 
one  between  that  which  is  transitory  and  that  which  is  eternal, 
between  the  imperfect  and  the  perfect,  between  that  in  which  ol 
apxovTfi  Tov  alcovos  TovTov  (i  Cor.  ii.  6)  have  power  and  that  in  which 

i  (iaa-tXfvs    rmv  alavuv   (Enoch   xii.   3)   will   rule,  oTciv   like   «co'<r/ior   in 

St.  John's  writings,  came  to  have  a  moral  significance :  Gal.  i.  4  eV 

TOV    alu>vos    TOV   fpf aTorros  irovT]fjnv:    Eph.   ii.    2    wtpunaT^iTort  koto  top 

aluva  TOV  Koap-nv  tovtov  :  and  80  in  this  passage. 

From  the  idea  of  a  succession  of  ages  (cf.  Eph.  ii.  7  4v  roU  alairi 
roii  firfp^ofjifi/ois)  came  the  expression  tls  tovs  atavas  (xi.  36),  or 
alwvas  tS>v  alavou  to  express  eternity,  as  an  alternative  for  the  older 
form  fls  t6v  ali>va.  The  latter,  which  is  the  ordinary  and  original 
O.  T.  form,  arises  (like  aiwwoj)  from  the  older  and  original  meaning 
of  the  Hebrew  '^/am,  'the  hidden  time/  'futurity,'  and  contains 
rather  the  idea  of  an  unending  period. 

TTj  df oKaivwaei  toC  vo6^  :  our  bodies  are  to  be  pure  and  free  from 
all  the  stains  of  passion ;  our  '  mind '  and  '  intellect '  are  to  be  no 
longer  enslaved  by  our  fleshly  nature,  but  renewed  and  purified  by 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Cf.  Tit.  iii.  5  Bia  XovrpoC  Trdkiyytytaias 
Koi  dvaKmvai(r((as  IIvfvpLaTos  'Ayiov:    2  Cor.   iv.    16:    Col.  iii.  lO.      On 

the  relation  of  dvaicaivaxTtc, '  renewal,'  to  TraXiyytwa/a  gee  Trench,  Syn. 
§  18.  By  this  renewal  the  intellectual  or  rational  principle  will  no 
longer  be  a  voiit  a-apKos  (Col.  ii.  18),  but  will  be  filled  with  the 
Spirit  ind  coincident  with  the  highest  part  of  human  nature 
(i  Cor.  ii.  15,  16). 

8oKi|ji<£t€H' :  cf.  ii.  18  ;  Phil.  i.  10.  The  result  of  this  purification 
is  to  make  the  intellect,  which  is  the  seat  of  moral  judgement,  true 
and  exact  in  judging  on  spiritual  and  moral  questions. 

TO  eArjfia  TOO  0eou,  k.t.X.,  '  That  which  is  in  accordance  with 
God's  will.'  This  is  further  defined  by  the  three  adjectives  which 
follow.  It  includes  all  that  is  implied  in  moral  principle,  in  the 
religious  aim,  and  the  ideal  perfection  which  it  the  goal  of  Ufe. 


THE  KIGHT  USE  OP  8PIKITUAI.  GITTa 

XII.  3-8.  Let  every  Christian  be  content  with  his  proper 
place  and  functions.  The  society  to  which  we  belong  is 
a  single  body  with  many  members  all  related  one  to  another. 
Hence  the  prophet  should  not  strain  after  effects  for  which 
his  faith  is  insufficient;  the  minister,  the  teacher,  the 
ex/iorter,  sliould  each  be  intent  on  his  special  duty.     The 


XII.  3-6]      THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS       355 

almsgiver,  the  person  in  authority,  the  doer  of  kindness^ 
should  each  cultivate  a  spirit  appropriate  to  what  he  does. 

8.  St.  Paul  begins  by  an  instance  in  which  the  need  of  an 
enlightened  mind  is  most  necessary;  namely,  the  proper  bearing 
of  a  Christian  in  the  community,  and  the  right  use  of  spiritual  gifts. 

8id  rfjs  x^^P^Tos  K.T.X.  gives  emphasis  by  an  appeal  to  Apostolic 
authority  (cf.  i.  5).  It  is  not  merely  a  question  of  the  spiritual 
progress  of  the  individual,  for  when  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  that  he 
uses  exhortation  (ver.  1),  but  of  the  discipline  and  order  of  the 
community;  this  is  a  subject  which  demand*  the  exercise  of 
authority  as  well  as  of  admonition. 

irarrl  t«  okti.  An  emphatic  appeal  to  every  member  of  the 
Christian  community,  for  every  one  (cVdaTO))  has  some  spiritual 
gift. 

(1^  fiirep(t>povciK,  '  not  to  be  high-minded  above  what  one  ought 
to  be  minded,  but  to  direct  one's  mind  to  sobriety.'     Notice  the 

play  on  words  vntpcppovtlv  .  .  .  i^povtiv  .  .  .  (fypovelv  .  .  .  cra)<f)povt'iw.     The 

<f>povtlv  tls  TO  (r«0pomv  would  be  the  fruit  of  the  enlightened  intellect 
as  opposed  to  the  (Pp6p7]p,a  rrjs  aapKds  (viii.  6). 

iKdarm  is  after  (pepiat,  not  in  apposition  to  wavA  ry  Svn,  and  its 
prominent  position  gives  the  idea  of  diversity;  for  the  order,  cp. 
I  Cor.  vii.  17.  'According  to  the  measure  of  faith  which  God  has 
given  each  man.'  The  wise  and  prudent  man  will  remember  that 
his  position  in  the  community  is  dependent  not  on  any  merit  of  his 
own,  but  on  the  measure  of  his  faith,  and  that  faith  is  the  gift  of 
God.  Faith  '  being  the  sign  and  measure  of  the  Christian  life '  is 
used  here  for  all  those  gifts  which  are  given  to  man  with  or  as  the 
result  of  his  faith.  Two  points  are  emphasized,  the  diversity  iKdarf 
, . .  pttrpow,  and  the  fact  that  this  diversity  depends  upon  God :  cf. 
I  Cor.  vii.  1  «XX*  ckairrot  (dter  f^'*  X'^P^I'^  '"^  Qtovp  i  ftiw  ovrtas,  i  6i 

WTt»g. 

4,  6.  Modesty  and  sobriety  and  good  judgement  are  necessary 
because  of  the  character  of  the  community :  it  is  an  organism  or 
corporate  body  in  which  each  person  has  his  own  duty  to  perform 
for  the  well-being  of  the  whole  and  therefore  of  himself. 

This  comparison  of  a  social  organism  to  a  body  was  very 
common  among  ancient  writers,  and  is  used  again  and  again  by 
St  Paul  to  illustrate  the  character  of  the  Christian  community :  see 
I  Cor.  xii.  12;  Eph.  iv.  15;  Col.  L  18.  The  use  here  is  based 
upon  that  in  i  Cor.  xii.  12-31.  In  the  Epistles  of  the  Captivity  it 
is  another  side  of  the  idea  that  is  expounded,  the  unity  of  the 
Church  in  Christ  as  its  head. 

6.  ri  8e  Kad*  cTs.  An  idiomatic  expression  found  in  later  Greek. 
Cf.  Mark  xiv.  19  «tr  Kaff  tU :  John  viii.  9 :  3  Mace.  v.  34  6  koB"  tit 
M  riuf  <t>ikmv :  Lucian  Soloecista  9 ;  £u«.  H.  E.  X.  iv,  &c     *Xi  koIB 

A  a  a 


55*  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XH.  5,  & 

its  was  probablj  formed  on  the  model  of  h  Ka&  «',  and  then  maJf 
%Xi  came  to  be  treated  adverbially  and  written  as  one  word :  hence 
it  could  be  used,  as  here,  with  a  neuter  article. 

6-13.  ?xo»^«5  S^  ■fo.fxa^o.ti^,  it.T.X.  These  words  may  be  taken 
grammatically  either  (i)  as  agreeing  with  the  subject  of  «<r/i«', 
a  comma  being  put  at  \t.i'^n,  or  (a)  as  the  beginning  of  a  new 
sentence  and  forming  the  subject  of  a  series  of  verbs  supplied  with 
the  various  sentences  that  follow ;  this  is  decidedly  preferable,  for  in 
the  previous  sentence  the  comparison  is  grammatically  finished,  and 
ixovTti  hi  suggests  the  beginning  of  a  new  sentence. 

Two  methods  of  construction  are  also  possible  for  the  wordg 

Karh.  Tr\v  aviikoyiav  tt]S  iriorrwr  .  .  .  «V  r^  iiaKOv'uf,  &C.     Either  they  muSt 

be  taken  as  dependent  on  txovrts,  or  a  verb  must  be  supplied  with 
each  and  the  sentences  become  exhortations,  (i)  If  the  first  con- 
struction be  taken  the  passage  will  run,  '  So  are  we  all  one  body  in 
Christ,  but  individually  members  one  of  another,  having  gifts  which 
are  different  according  to  the  grace  which  is  given  us,  whether  we 
have  prophecy  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith,  or  a  function 
of  ministry  in  matters  of  ministration,  or  whether  a  man  is  a  teachei 
in  the  exercise  of  functions  of  teaching,  or  one  who  exhorteth  in 
exhortation,  one  who  giveth  with  singleness  of  purpose,  one  who 
zealously  provides,  one  who  showeth  mercy  cheerfully.'  (a)  Accord- 
ing to  the  second  interpretation  we  must  translate  'having  gifts 
which  vary  according  to  the  grace  given  us, — be  it  prophecy  let  us 
use  it  in  proportion  to  the  faith  given  us,  be  it  ministry  let  us  use  it 
in  ministry,'  &c. 

That  the  latter  (which  is  that  of  Mey.  Go.  Va.  Gif )  is  preferable 
is  shown  by  the  difficulty  of  keeping  up  the  former  interpretation 
to  the  end ;  few  commentators  have  the  hardihood  to  carry  it 
on  as  far  as  ver.  8;  nor  is  it  really  easier  in  ver.  7,  where  the 
additions  «V  rfi  SiaKovlq  are  very  otiose  if  they  merely  qualify  *xovT(t 
understood.  In  spite  therefore  of  the  somewhat  harsh  ellipse,  the 
second  constraction  must  be  adopted  throughout. 

6.  Karol  T^v  &va\oyiav  rqs  iriorcws  {sc.  npo(f)tjT(V(a(uv).  The 
meaning  of  nlcrreas  here  is  suggested  by  that  in  ver.  3.  A  man's 
gifts  depend  upon  the  measure  of  faith  allotted  to  him  by  God, 
and  so  he  must  use  and  exercise  these  gifts  in  proportion  to  the 
faith  that  is  in  him.  If  he  be  aaxfipmv  and  his  mind  is  enlightened 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  will  judge  rightly  his  capacity  and  power  ;  i^, 
on  the  other  hand,  his  mind  be  carnal,  he  will  try  to  distinguish 
himself  vain-gloriously  and  di.<5turb  the  peace  of  the  community, 

Liddon,  with  most  of  the  Latin  Fathers  and  many  later  com- 
mentators, takes  niartms  objectively :  '  The  majestic  proportion  of 
the  (objective)  Faith  is  before  him,  and,  keeping  his  eye  on  it,  he 
avoids  private  crotchets  and  wild  fanaticisms,  which  exaggerate 
the  relative  importance  of  particular  truths  to  the  neglect  of  others.' 


XII.  e-8.]     THE  RIGHT  USB  OF  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS       357 

But  this  interpretation  is  inconsistent  with  the  meaning  he  has 
himself  given  to  irla-ns  in  ver.  3,  and  gives  a  sense  to  avaXoylap 
which  it  will  not  bear ;  the  difl&culty  being  concealed  by  the  ambi- 
guity of  the  word  '  proportion '  in  English. 

7.  SioKOKior,  '  if  we  have  the  gift  of  ministry,  let  us  use  it  in 
ministering  to  the  community,  and  not  attempt  ambitiously  to 
prophesy  or  exhort.'  dioKovia  was  used  either  generally  of  all 
Christian  ministrations  (so  Rom.  xi.  13;  i  Cor.  xii.  5;  Eph.  iv. 
12,  Ac.)  or  specially  of  the  administration  of  alms  and  attendance 
to  bodily  wants  (i  Cor.  xvi.  15 ;  a  Cor.  viii.  4,  &c.).  Here  the 
opposition  to  irpo(f)r)Tfia,  didaa-KoXia,  wapdiiKijirii  seems  to  demand  the 
more  confined  sense. 

6  SiSdaKuc.  St.  Paul  here  substitutes  a  personal  phrase  because 
txuv  8i8a(TKaXiav  would  mean,  not  to  impart,  but  to  receive  instruction. 

8.  6  fA€Ta8i8ous :  the  man  who  gives  alms  of  his  own  substance 
is  to  do  it  in  singleness  of  purpose  and  not  with  mixed  motives, 
with  the  thought  of  ostentation  or  reward.  With  i  n€Ta5iSovs,  the 
man  who  gives  of  his  own,  while  6  8ta8i8ovs  is  the  man  who  dis- 
tributes other  persons*  gifts,  comp.  TesL  XII.  Pair.  Iss.  7  navA 

av6pa>ir<0  6dvvofiev<a  avvtcTTiva^a,  koH  irraix^  ptTthaKa  t6i»  aprov  fiov, 

dirXoTTis,  The  meaning  of  this  word  is  illustrated  best  by  Test 
XII.  Fair.  Issachar,  or  ntp\  inXonjTos.  Issachar  is  represented  as 
the  husbandman,  who  lived  simply  and  honestly  on  his  land.  'And 
my  father  blessed  me,  seeing  that  I  walk  in  simplicity  {inXorr}!). 
And  I  was  not  inquisitive  in  my  actions,  nor  wicked  and  envious 
towards  my  neighbour.  I  did  not  speak  evil  of  any  one,  nor  attack 
a  man's  life,  but  I  walked  with  a  single  eye  {iv  d7rX<Jn;Ti  6^6aKpS>v). 
.  .  .  To  every  poor  and  every  afflicted  man  I  provided  the  good 
things  of  the  earth,  in  simplicity  (&ifk6rrjs)  of  heart.  .  .  .  The  simple 
man  (6  iiikovs)  doth  not  desire  gold,  doth  not  ravish  his  neighbour, 
doth  not  care  for  all  kinds  of  dainty  meats,  doth  not  wish  for 
diversity  of  clothing,  doth  not  promise  himself  (ov^  vnoypac^u)  length 
of  days,  he  receiveth  only  the  will  of  God  ...  he  walketh  in  up- 
rightness of  life,  and  beholdeth  all  things  in  simplicity  (dirXdri^Ti).' 
Issachar  is  the  honourable,  hardworking,  straightforward  farmer ; 
open-handed  and  open-hearted,  giving  out  of  compassion  and  in 
singleness  of  purpose,  not  from  ambition. 

The  word  is  used  by  St.  Paul  alone  in  the  N.  T.,  and  was 
specially  suited  to  describe  the  generous  unselfish  character  of 
Christian  almsgiving;  and  hence  occurs  in  one  or  two  places 
almost  with  the  signification  of  liberality,  a  Cor.  ix.  11,  13;  just  as 
'  liberality '  in  English  has  come  to  have  a  secondary  meaning,  and 
iuiaiovvvr)  in  Hellenistic  Greek  (Hatch,  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek, 
p.  49).  Such  specialization  is  particularly  natural  in  the  East, 
where  large-hearted  generosity  is  a  popular  virtue,  and  where  such 
words  as  '  gpod '  may  be  used  simply  to  mean  munificent 


$$B  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XII.  a 

A  irpoioTiificros,  the  man  that  presides,  or  governs  in  any  position, 
whether  ecclesiastical  or  other.  The  word  is  used  of  ecclesiastical 
officials,  I  Thess.  v,  la  ;  i  Tim.  v.  17  ;  Just.  Mart.  Apvl.  i.  67 ;  and 
of  a  man  ruling  his  family  (i  Tim.  iii.  4,  5,  13),  and  need  not  be 
any  further  defined.  Zeal  and  energy  are  the  natural  gifts  required 
of  any  ruler. 

6  IKedv.  '  Let  any  man  or  woman  who  performs  deeds  of  mercy 
in  the  church,  do  so  brightly  and  cheerfully.'  The  value  of  bright- 
ness in  performing  acts  of  kindness  has  become  proverbial,  Ecclus. 

XXXii.  (XXXV.)  1 1  eV  Trdaj)  ioati  'iXdpmaoy  to  np6<T(i)n6v  aov:   Prov.  xxii.  8 

av8pa  iXapuv  Kiii  doTriv  tvXoyfl  6  Qfos  (quoted  t  Cor.  ix.  7);  but  just  as 
singleminded  sincerity  became  an  eminently  Christian  virtue,  so 
cheerfulness  in  all  the  paths  of  life,  a  cheerfulness  which  springs 
from  a  warm  heart,  and  a  pure  conscience  and  a  serene  mind  set 
on  something  above  this  world,  was  a  special  characteristic  of  the 
early  Christian  (Acts  IL  46;  ▼.  41;  Phil.  L  4,  18;  ii.  18,  &c. ; 
I  Thess.  V.  16). 

Spiritual  Gifts. 

The  word  xapiviM  (which  is  almost  purely  Pauline)  is  used  of 
those  special  endowments  which  come  to  every  Christian  as  the 
result  of  God's  free  favour  (xap»r)  to  men  and  of  the  consequent 
gift  of  faith.  In  Rom.  v.  15,  vi.  13,  indeed,  it  has  a  wider  signifi- 
cation, meaning  the  free  gift  on  the  part  of  God  to  man  of  forgive- 
ness of  sins  and  eternal  Hfe,  but  elsewhere  it  appears  always  to  be 
used  for  those  personal  endowments  which  are  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit.  In  this  connexion  it  is  not  confined  to  special  or  con- 
spicuous endowments  or  to  special  offices.  There  are,  indeed, 
ra  xapi(rfiaTa  ra  pfi(ova  (i  Cor.  xii.  31),  which  are  thosc  apparently 
most  beneficial  to  the  community;  but  in  the  same  Epistle  the  word 
is  also  used  of  the  individual  fitness  for  the  married  or  the  un- 
married state  (i  Cor.  vii.  7);  and  in  Rom.  i.  13  it  is  used  of  the 
spiritual  advantage  which  an  Apostle  might  confer  on  the  com- 
munity. So  again,  x"P'<^M<»''«  include  miraculous  powers,  but  no 
distinction  is  made  between  them  and  non-miraculous  gifts.  In 
the  passage  before  us  there  is  the  same  combination  of  very 
widely  differing  g^fts;  the  Apostle  gives  specimens  (if  we  may 
express  it  so)  of  various  Christian  endowments;  it  is  probable 
that  some  of  them  were  generally  if  not  always  the  function  of 
persons  specially  set  apart  for  the  purpose  (although  not  perhaps 
necessarily  holding  ecclesiastical  office),  others  would  not  be  con- 
fined to  any  one  office,  and  many  might  be  possessed  by  the  same 
person.  St.  Paul's  meaning  is :  By  natural  endowments,  strengthened 
with  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  you  have  various  powers  and  capacities : 
in  the  use  of  these  it  is  above  all  necessary  for  the  good  of  the 


ZU.  8-8.]      THE  RIGHT  USE  OF  SPIRITUAL  GIFTS       359 

community  that  you  should  show  a  wise  and  prudent  judgement, 
not  attemptmg  offices  or  work  for  which  you  are  not  fitted,  nor 
marring  your  gifts  by  exercising  them  in  a  wrong  spirit. 

This  being  the  meaning  of  xapt''^M"^«  -nd  Su  Paul's  purpose  in 
this  chapter,  interpretations  of  it,  as  of  the  similar  passage  (chap, 
xii)  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  have  attempted 
to  connect  spiritual  gifts  more  closely  with  the  Christian  ministry 
are  unfounded.  These  are  of  two  characters.  One,  that  of 
Neander,  maintain!  that  in  the  original  Church  there  were  no 
ecclesiastical  officers  at  all  but  only  x'^p^(^(*°'ra,  and  that  as  spiritual 
gifts  died  out,  legulariy  appointed  officers  took  the  place  of  those 
who  possessed  them.  The  other  finds,  or  attempts  to  find,  an 
ecclesiastical  office  for  each  gift  of  the  Spirit  mentioned  in  this 
chapter  and  the  parallel  passage  ol  the  Corinthians,  or  at  any  rate 
argues  that  there  must  have  been  npocftrjTai,  di^da-KaXoi  ice,  existing 
as  church  officers  in  the  Corinthian  and  Roman  communities. 
Neither  of  these  is  a  correct  deduction  from  the  passages  under 
consideration.  In  dealing  with  the  ^apivfiara  St.  Paul  is  discussing 
a  series  of  questions  only  partially  connected  with  the  Christian 
ministry.  Every  church  officer  would,  we  may  presume,  be  con- 
sidered to  have  x<v'<^M«»"«  which  would  fit  him  for  the  fulfilment  of 
such  an  office;  but  most,  if  not  all,  Christians  would  also  have  xapi(r- 
nara.  The  two  questions  therefore  are  on  different  planes  which 
partially  intersect,  and  deductions  from  these  chapters  made  in 
any  direction  as  to  the  form  of  the  Christian  organization  are 
invalid,  although  they  show  the  spiritual  endowments  which  those 
prominent  in  the  community  could  possess. 

A  comparison  of  the  two  passages,  i  Cor.  xii.  and  Rom.  xii.  3-8, 
is  interesting  on  other  grounds.  St.  Paul  in  the  Corinthian  Epistle 
is  dealing  with  a  definite  series  of  difficulties  arising  from  the 
special  endowments  and  irregularities  of  that  church.  He  treats 
the  whole  subject  very  fully,  and,  as  was  necessary,  condemns 
definite  disorders.  In  the  Roman  Episde  he  is  evidently  writing 
with  the  former  Epistle  in  his  mind  :  he  uses  the  same  simile :  he 
concludes  equally  with  a  list  of  forms  of  xap^f^para — shorter,  indeed, 
but  representative;  but  there  is  no  sign  of  that  directness  which 
would  arise  from  dealing  with  special  circumstances.  The  letter  is 
written  with  the  experience  of  Corinth  fresh  in  the  writer's  mind, 
but  without  any  immediate  purpose.  He  is  laying  down  directions 
based  on  his  experience  ;  but  instead  of  a  number  of  different 
details,  he  sums  up  all  that  he  has  to  say  in  one  general  moral 
principle :  Prudence  and  self-restraint  in  proportion  to  the  gift  ot 
faith.  Just  as  the  doctrinal  portions  of  the  Episde  are  written  with 
the  memory  of  past  controversies  still  fresh,  discussing  and  laying 
down  in  a  broad  spirit  positions  which  had  been  gained  in  the 
Gonrse  of  those  controversies,  so  we  shall  find  that  in  the  practical 


360  EPISTLE  TO  TH£  ROMANS  [XII.  8 

portion  St  Paul  is  Izyiag  down  broad  and  statesmanlike  positions 
whicli  are  the  result  of  past  experience  and  deal  with  circumstancei 
which  may  arise  in  any  community. 


MAXIMS  TO  GUIDE  THE  CHBISTIAIT  IiTFTL 

Xll.  9-21.  TA^  general  principles  of  your  life  should  bi 
a  love  which  is  perfectly  sincere,  depth  of  moral  feelings 
consideration  for  others,  zeal,  fervour,  devoutness,  hopefulness, 
fortitude  under  persecutions,  pray  erf ulness,  eagerness  to  help 
your  fellow- Christians  by  sharing  what  you  possess  with 
them  and  by  the  ready  exercise  of  hospitality. 

Bless,  do  not  curse,  your  persecutors.  Sympathize  with 
others.  Be  united  in  feeling,  not  ambitious  but  modest  in 
your  aims.  Be  not  self-opinionated  or  revengeful.  Do 
nothing  to  offend  the  world.  Leave  vengeanci  to  God, 
Good  for  evil  is  the  best  requital. 

0.  ^  Ay*^'"!'  cf.  xiii.  8.  The  Apostle  comes  back  from  direc- 
tions which  only  apply  to  individuals  to  the  general  direction  to 
Christian  Charity,  which  will  solve  all  previous  difficulties.    Euthym.- 

Zig.  hihaoKitv  yap  ircof  hv  to,  ftprjfitva  KaropBaBfit),  fnfiyayt  rfju  fMtjrtpa 
ndvTcov  TovTcov,   X/yw   87   rfjv  (Is  d\\Tj\ovc   dyaTrrjv.      The   Sequence  of 

ideas  is  exactly  similar  to  that  in  i  Cor.  xii,  xiii,  and  obviously 
suggested  by  it.  In  the  section  that  follows  (9-21),  dydnrj  is  the 
ruling  thought,  but  the  Apostle  does  not  allow  himself  to  be  con- 
fined and  pours  forth  directions  as  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  life 
which  crowd  into  his  mind. 

dKoiriitpiTos.  Wisd.  V.  i^;#  xviii.  16;  3  Cor.  vi.  6  {aydrnf); 
I  Tim.  i.  5  and  2  Tim.  i.  5  (ttio-tis)  ;  Jas.  iii.  17  (17  avu)6ev  cro^ia) ; 
I  Pet.  i.  22  {c{>t\a8eXcfi(.a).  It  is  si.f^nifi':^ant  thnt  th"  Avord  is  not 
used  in  profane  writers  except  once  in  the  adverbial  form,  and 
that  by  Marcus  Aurelius  (viii.  5). 

dTToaTuyourres :  sc.  (art  as  f(TTu>  above,  and  cf.  I  Pet.  ii.  18 ;  iii.  i. 
An  alternative  construction  is  to  suppose  an  anacoluthon,  as  if 
ayairoTf  avvnoKpiTas  had  been  read  above;  cf.  2  Cor.  i.  7.  The 
word  expresses  a  strong  feeling  of  horror;  the  otto-  by  farther 
emphasizing  the  idea  of  separation  gives  an  intensive  force,  which 
is  heightened  by  contrast  with  KoWayfifvoi. 

ri  TTorrjpoK  .  .  .  ry  dyaOw.  The  characteristic  of  true  genuine 
love  is  to  attach  oneself  to  the  good  in  a  man,  while  detesting  the 
evil  in  him.  There  cannot  be  love  for  what  is  evil,  but  whoevei 
has  love  in  him  can  see  the  ^rood  that  there  is  in  sU. 


Zn.  10,  IL]    MAXIMS  TO  GUIDE  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE    361 

10.  TQ  ^tXo8e\4»i^,  Move  of  the  brethren';  as  contrasted  with 
dyaiTT),  which  is  universal,  (f)iKabf\<pia  represents  affection  for  the 
brethren;   that  is,  for  all  members  of  the  Christian  community, 

cf.  2    Pet.  i.   7.      Euthym.-Zig.   d?ie\(poi  tare  Kara    rfjv  avTr)v    bia  rov 
^aTTTLcrfiaTOS  dvayevvrja-ip  Kal  Sta  tovto  di'ayxrji/  e)^tTf  <Pi,\a8(\<f)iae. 

(|>iX(5<rropYoi :  the  proper  term  for  strong  family  affection.  Euthym.- 
Zig.  TovT€cm  dfjifj-Hs  Kul  bianvpios  (piXoivTes.  (iriTavts  yap  0tXtaf  ^ 
OTopyT),  Ka\  TTJs  arropyrji  jrdcTwr  av^rjcris  ff  cf)i\o(TTopyta, 

-Tp  Ti|ifi  it.T.X. :  of.  Phil.  ii.  3  'in  lowliness  of  mind  each  account- 
ing other  better  than  himself.'  The  condition  and  the  result  of 
true  affection  are  that  no  one  seeks  his  own  honour  or  position,  and 
every  one  is  willing  to  give  honour  to  others.  The  word  Trporjyou- 
|Mroi  is  somewhat  difficult ;  naturally  it  would  mean  '  going  before,' 
'preceding,'  and  so  it  has  been  translated,  (i)  '  in  matters  of  honour 
preventing  one  another,'  being  the  first  to  show  honour :  so  Vulg. 
invicem  praevenientes ;  or  (a)  'leading  the  way  in  honourable 
actions':  'Love  makes  a  man  lead  others  by  the  example  of 
showing  respect  to  worth  or  saintliness,'  Liddon;  or  (3)  'surpass- 
ing one  another ' :  '  There  is  nothing  which  makes  friends  so 
much,  as  the  earnest  endeavour  to  overcome  one's  neighbour  in 
honouring  him,'  Chrys. 

But  all  these  translations  are  somewhat  forced,  and  are  difficult, 
because  irpoTjyuaBai  in  this  sense  never  takes  the  accusative.  It  is, 
in  fact,  as  admissible  to  give  the  word  a  meaning  which  it  has  not 
elsewhere,  as  a  construction  which  is  unparalleled.  A  comparison 
therefore  of  i  Thess.  v.  13;  Phil.  iL  3  suggests  that  St.  Paul  is 
using  the  word  in  the  quite  possible,  although  otherwise  unknown, 
sense  of  {jyoifitvoi  vntpixovras.  So  apparently  RV.  (  =  AV.)  'in 
honour  preferring  one  another,'  and  Vaughan. 

11.  TQ  oTTouSfj  ji.^  ^Knrjpoi,  'in  zeal  not  flagging';  the  words 
being  used  in  a  spiritual  sense,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  clauses. 
Zeal  in  all  our  Christian  duties  will  be  the  natural  result  of  our 
Christian  love,  and  will  in  time  foster  it.  On  oKvrjpos  cf.  Matt.  xxv. 
26 :  it  is  a  word  common  in  the  LXX  of  Proverbs  (vi.  6,  &c.). 

T^iri'eujxoTi  t^orres:  cf.  Acts  xviii.  25,  'fervent  in  spirit';  that  is 
the  human  spirit  instinct  with  and  inspired  by  the  Divine  Spirit. 
The  spiritual  life  is  the  source  of  the  Christian's  love :  *  And  all 
things  will  be  easy  from  the  Spirit  and  the  love,  while  thou  art 
made  to  glow  from  both  sides,'  Chrys. 

T^  Kupi'w  SooXeu'ov^cs.  The  source  of  Christian  zeal  is  spiritual 
life,  the  regulating  principle  our  service  to  Christ.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  find  any  very  subtle  connexion  of  thought  between 
these  clauses,  they  came  forth  eagerly  and  irregularly  from  St. 
Paul's  mind.  Kvpiy  may  have  been  suggested  by  nufvpan,  just  as 
below  dtwKcu*  in  one  sense  suggests  the  same  word  in  another 
sense. 


|69  XPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XII.  11-18. 

There  U  •  very  considerable  balance  of  authority  in  faToor  of  mpt^ 
(KABELP  &c.,  Vulg.  Syrr.  Boh.,  Gr.  Fathers)  as  against  Kcup^  (DFG, 
Latin  Fathers).  Cf,  Jar.  £/>.  37  ad  Marcellam  :  iV/»  /^•^aw/  spe  gaudente*, 
tempori  servientes,  nos  legamut  domino  servientes.  Oiig.-lat.  tui  Uc.  tcit 
auttm  in  nonnullis  Latinorum  extmplis  habtri  tempori  servicntea:  quod 
non  mihi  videtur  convenUnttr  insertum.  The  corruption  may  have  arisen 
from  iMJS  tjpo)  being  confused  together,  a  confusion  which  would  be  eaiier 
from  reminiscences  of  snch  expressions  as  £ph.  ▼.  16  J£a7o/>a((S/x«'<M  r^ 

12.  TJJ  AiriSi  xaipot^nS'  See  above  on  ver.  8.  The  Chnstian 
hope  is  the  cause  of  that  Christian  joy  and  cheerfulness  of  dis- 
position which  is  the  grace  of  Cliristian  love:  cf.  i  Cor.  ziii.  7 
'  Love  .  .  .  hopeth  all  things.' 

Tg  6Xi<)>ci  h-Ko^ivQvtvi.  Endurance  in  persecution  is  natnrallj 
connected  with  the  Christian's  hope :  cf.  i  Cor.  xiii.  7  '  Love  . . . 
endureth  all  things.' 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  how  strongly,  even  thus  early,  persecu- 
tion as  a  characteristic  of  the  Christian's  life  in  the  world  had 
impressed  itself  on  St.  Paul's  phraseology :  see  i  Thess.  i.  6 ;  iii. 
3,  7 ;  2  Thess.  i.  4,  6 ;  a  Cor.  i.  4,  Ac. ;  Rom.  v.  3 ;  viii.  35. 

T^  irpoo-cuxt)  irpoo-KapTcpouKTcs :  Acts.  i.  14;  ii.  4s;  Col.  iv.  9. 
Persecution  again  naturally  suggests  prayer,  for  the  strength  of 
prayer  is  specially  needed  in  times  of  persecution. 

13.  Tois  xp'ittis  TUK  dyiui'  KOiKdJcoGn-cs.  This  verse  contains  two 
special  applications  of  the  principle  of  love — sharing  one's  goods 
with  fellow-Christians  in  need,  and  exercising  that  hospitality 
which  was  part  of  the  bond  which  knit  together  the  Christian  com- 
munity. With  Kowfitvtiv  in  this  sense  c£  Phil.  iv.  15;  Rom.  xv.  a6; 
t  Cor.  ix.  13;  Heb.  xiii.  16. 

The  variation  toTj  p»tiai%  (D  F  G,  MSS.  known  to  Theod.  Mopt.,  Vulg. 
cod.  (am),  Ens.  Hist.  Mart.  Pal.,  ed.  Cnreton,  p.  i,  Hil.  Ambrstr.  Aug.)  it 
interesting.  In  the  translation  of  Origan  we  read :  Usibus  sanctorum  com- 
municantes.  Memini  in  latinis  extmplaribus  magis  haberi:  memoriia 
sanctorum  comii/unicantes:  verum  nos  nee  consueiudimm  turbamus,  mte 
veritati  praeiudicamus,  maxime  cum  utrumqiu  conveniat  cudificationi. 
Nam  usibus  sanctorum  honeste  et  decenter,  non  quasi  stipem  indigentibut 
praebere,  sed  censum  nostrorum  cum  ipsis  quodammodo  habere  commumm,  et 
meminisse  sanctorum  sive  in  collectis  solemnibus,  sive  pro  eo,  ut  ex  recorda- 
tione  eorum  proficiamus,  aptum  et  conveniens  videtur.  The  variation  most 
have  arisen  at  a  time  when  the  '  holy '  were  no  longer  the  members  of  the 
community  and  fellow-Christians,  whose  bodily  wants  required  relieving, 
but  the  'saints'  of  the  past,  whose  lives  were  commemorated.  But  this 
custom  arose  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century :  cf.  Mart. 
Polyc.  xviii  iv6a  dn  dwaT'jv  fj^iiv  cvvayo/ityoK  iv  ayaXKiAau  ital  xap^  trapt^fi 
6  Kvpios  irriTtKftv  ri^y  rov  puiprvpiov  avrov  f)n(pay  ytpiOXiov,  «is  t«  rtjv  tup 
wporj6\TjK6Twv  fivTjfnjv  Koi  rSh'  pitWSvrosv  anKrjaiy  rt  koI  iroifiaaiav :  and  the 
rariations  may,  like  other  peculiarities  of  the  western  text,  easily  have  arisen 
•o  soon.  We  cannot  however  lay  any  stress  on  the  passage  of  Origen,.««  it 
is  probably  dne  to  Rufinus.  See  Binghun,  Ant.  xiii.  9.  5.  WH.  suggest 
that  it  was  a  clerical  error  arising  fxcp%  the  coofusioa  of  XP  *^'^  *"*  ^ 
•  badly  written  papyroi  M.S. 


SII.  18-16.]  MAXIMS  TO  GUIDE  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  3O3 

^iXoCcKiar.  From  the  very  beginning  hospitality  was  recognized 
as  one  of  the  most  important  of  Christian  duties  (Heb.  xiii.  a 
I  Tim.  iii.  2 ;  Tit.  i.  8 ;  i  Pet.  iv.  9 ;  compare  also  Clem.  Rom.  §  i 
r4  fitydkonpenfs  T^t  <f)iKo^tv[at  vfiiv  rjdot '.  §  I O  of  Abraham  bia  nitrnt 
cat  (^tXo^cKiay  iiodtf  avr^  viis  iv  yr)pa :  §  1 1  dta  <f}i\o^tviav  xai  (vai^eiaw 
Ai»T  itriidrj'.   §  IS  dw  irifmv  koi  (()iXo^fviav   ta-adrj  'Paa/3  ij  iropvr]  §  35). 

On  its  significance  in  the  early  Church  see  Ramsay,  The  Church 
in  the  Roman  Empire^  pp.  288,  368.  The  Christians  looked  upon 
themselves  as  a  body  of  men  scattered  throughout  the  world,  living 
as  aliens  amongst  strange  people,  and  therefore  bound  together 
as  the  members  of  a  body,  as  the  brethren  of  one  family.  The 
practical  realization  of  this  idea  would  demand  that  whenever  a 
Christian  went  from  one  place  to  another  he  should  find  a  home 
imong  the  Christians  in  each  town  he  visited.  We  have  a  picture 
of  this  intercommunion  in  the  letters  of  Ignatius ;  we  can  learn  it 
at  an  earlier  period  from  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
(a  Cor.  iii.  1;  viii.  18,  a3,  24).  One  necessary  part  of  such  inter- 
communion would  be  the  constant  carrying  out  of  the  duties 
of  hospitality.  It  was  the  unity  and  strength  which  this  inter- 
course gave  that  formed  one  of  the  great  forces  which  supported 
Christianity. 

14.  cuXoyctTC  -rods  Sitfuorrat.  The  use  of  the  word  iuLKtiv  in  one 
sense  seems  to  have  suggested  its  use  in  another.  The  resem- 
blance to  Matt.  v.  44  is  very  close :  '  But  I  say  unto  you,  Love 
your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  persecute  you.'  Emphasis 
is  added  by  the  repetition  of  the  maxim  in  a  negative  form.  Cf. 
James  iii.  9. 

15.  x^^P***'  |*<tA  Yfi'Kpiwwf  it.T.X.  On  the  infinitive  cf  Winer, 
§  xliii.  5  d,  p.  397,  E.  T.  But  it  seems  more  forcible  and  less 
awkward  to  take  it,  as  in  PhiL  iii.  16,  as  the  infinitive  used  for 
the  emphatic  imperative  than  to  suppose  a  change  of  construc- 
tion. 'But  that  requires  more  of  a  high  Christian  temper,  to 
rejoice  with  them  that  do  rejoice,  than  to  weep  with  them  that 
weep.  For  this  nature  itself  fulfils  perfectly :  and  there  is  none 
to  hardhearted  as  not  to  weep  over  him  that  is  in  calamity :  but 
the  other  requires  a  very  noble  soul,  so  as  not  only  to  keep  from 
envying,  but  even  to  feel  pleasure  with  the  person  who  is  in 
esteem.  And  this  is  whv  we  placed  it  first.  For  there  is  nothing 
that  ties  love  so  firmly  as  sharing  both  joy  and  pain  one  witn 
another,'  Chrys.  ad  he.     Cf.  Ecclus.  vii.  34. 

16.  th  auTo  .  .  .  <t)poi'oucT€s,  '  being  harmonious  in  your  relationa 
towards  one  another ' :  cf.  xv.  5  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  1 1 ;  Phil.  ii.  2  ;  iv.  a. 
The  great  hindrance  to  this  would  be  having  too  high  an  estima- 
tion of  oneself:  hence  the  Apostle  goes  on  to  condemn  such 
pride. 

ik\  tA  diHXA  ^poraurrct  -  cf.  xi.  ao ;  ■  Cor.  xiii.  5  *  Love  vaunteth 


364  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS       [XII.  16-10 

not  itself,  is  not  puffed  up/  shows  how  St  Paul  is  still  carrying  out 

the  leading  idea  of  the  passage. 

Tois  TOTTeiKois :  prob.  neuter ;  '  allow  yourself  to  be  carried  along 
with,  give  yourself  over  to,  humble  tasks :  *  '  consentinge  to  meke 
thingis,'  Wic.  The  verb  trvvandyav  means  in  the  active  'to  lead 
along  with  one,'  hence  in  the  passive,  '  to  be  carried  away  with,'  as 
by  a  flood  which  sweeps  everything  along  with  it  (Lightfoot  on 
Gal.  ii.  13;  cf.  a  Pet.  iii.  17),  and  hence  'to  give  oneself  up  to.' 

The  neuter  seems  best  to  suit  the  contrast  with  ra  ir^Xd  and 
the  meaning  of  the  verb ;  but  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  ranuvos  is 
always  masculine,  and  so  many  take  it  here :  '  make  yourselves 
equall  to  them  of  the  lower  sorte,'  Tyn.  Cov.  Genev.  '  Con- 
sentinge to  the  humble,'  Rhen.  So  Chrys. :  '  That  is,  bring  thyself 
down  to  their  humble  condition,  ride  or  walk  with  ihem ;  do  not  be 
humbled  in  mind  only,  but  help  them  also,  and  stretch  forth  thy 
hand  to  them.' 

fi^  Y'*"*'^^  (^pcSKijioi  irop*  lauTots :  taken  apparently  from  Prov.  iii. 
7  fjif]  la-di  (f)p6uifios  napa  afavrm.  Cf.  Origen  non  potest  veram  tapitn- 
tiam  Dei  scire,  qui  suam  stultiiiam  quasi  sapientiam  colit. 

17.  fi.TjSci'l  KaKOK  L\rt\  KOKoS  diroSiS(Srrcs.  Another  result  of  the 
principle  of  love.     Mat.  v.  43,  44;   i  Thess.  v.  15;  i  PeL  iii.  9 ; 

1  Cor.  xiii.  5,  6  '  Love  . . .  taketh  not  account  of  evil ;  rejoiceth 
not  in  unrighteousness,  but  rejoiceth  with  the  truth.' 

irpo^oou^6"oi   KaXd  ^ctSirtoK  irdirrwi'  dMOptSiruK :   cf.  Prov.  iii.  4 ; 

2  Cor.  iv.  2;  viii.  21.  'As  nothing  causes  offence  so  much  as 
offending  men's  prejudices,  see  that  your  conduct  will  commend 
itself  as  honourable  to  men.'     Euthym.-Zig.  oi-  irpot  tnidet^iv  dWa 

irp6s    fiLda<TKaXiav,   Koi    &ot«    (iTj8fv\    doivai    Trpd^ao-tv    (TKavSoKov,      This 

seems  better  than  to  lay  all  the  emphasis  on  the  rrdprmp,  as  some 
would  do. 

18.  €1  iuvar6v,  *  if  it  be  possible,  live  peaceably  with  all  men,  at 
any  rate  as  far  as  concerns  your  part  {t6  <|  iftav).'  Over  what  others 
will  do  you  can  have  no  control,  and  if  they  break  the  peace  it  is 
not  your  fault.     '  Love  seeketh  not  its  own '  (i  Cor.  xiii.  5). 

10.  dYOTTTjToi.  Added  because  of  the  difficulty  of  the  precept  not 
to  avenge  oneself. 

Z6re  T<5iroK  t^  6pYii,  *  give  room  or  place  to  the  wrath  of  God ' 
Let  God's  wrath  punish.  Euthym.-Zig.  aXXA  napaxape'irt  ttjs  tKSiK^ 
atus  Tj)  opyii  rov  Ofov,  rg  Kpiau  toi5  Kvpt'ov.  The  meaning  of  idn 
Toirov  is  shown  by  Eph.  iv.  27  ftrfdi  8idoT€  rdnov  r<5  dia/3($Xa>,  do  not 
give  scope  or  place  to  the  devil ;  17  6pyr)  means  the  wrath  of  God : 
cf.  Rom.  v.  9.  That  this  is  the  right  interpretation  of  the  word  is 
shown  by  the  quotation  which  follows. 

But  other  interpretations  have  been  often  held:  Wr«  Trfn-w  is 
translated  by  some,  '  allow  space,  interpose  delay,'  i.e.  check  and 
restrain  your  wrath;   by  others,   'yield  to  the  anger  (A  your 


XII.  18-21.]       ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS  365 

opponent ' :  neither  of  these  interpretations  suits  the  context  or 
the  Greek. 

Yfypavrai  ydp.  The  quotation  which  follows  comes  from  Deut 
xxxii.  35,  and  resembles  the  Hebrew  '  Vengeance  is  mine  and 
recompense,  rather  than  the  LXX  «V  fjnep<f  tKbiKijafots  avranoddxTut : 
and  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  more  than  either.  The  words  are 
quoted  in  the  same  form  in  Heb.  x.  30. 

20.  dXXA  'EAk  ireiK^  6  ix9p6i  oroo  K.T.X.  Taken  from  the  LXX ;  cf. 
Prov.  XXV.  ai,  ai,  agreeing  exactly  with  the  text  of  B,  but  varying 
somewhat  from  that  of  A  M.  The  term  S.vdpaKti  Ttup6s  clearly  means 
*  terrible  pangs  or  pains/  cf.  Ps.  cxxxix  (cxl).  1 1  (LXX) ;  4  (5)  Ezra 
xvi.  54  Non  dicai  peccator  se  non  peccasse,  quoniam  carbones  ignis 
€9mburti  suptr  caput  eius  qui  dicit :  Non  peccavi  coram  domino  et 
gloria  ipsiut.  But  with  what  purpose  are  we  to  '  heap  coals  of  fire 
on  his  head'  ?  Is  it  (i)  that  we  may  be  consoled  for  our  kind  act 
by  knowing  that  he  will  be  punished  for  his  misdeeds  ?  This  is 
impossible,  for  it  attributes  a  malicious  motive,  which  is  quite 
inconsistent  with  the  context  both  here  and  in  the  O.  T.  In  the 
latter  the  passage  proceeds,  '  And  the  Lord  shall  reward  thee,'  im- 
plying that  the  deed  is  a  good  one ;  here  we  are  immediately  told 
that  we  are  not  to  be  '  overcome  of  evil,  but  overcome  evil  with 
good,'  which  clearly  implies  that  we  are  to  do  what  is  for  our 
enemies'  benefit,  (a)  Coals  of  fire  must,  therefore,  mean,  as  most 
commentators  since  Augustine  have  said,  '  the  burning  pangs  of 
shame/  which  a  man  will  feel  when  good  is  returned  for  evil,  and 
which  may  produce  remorse  and  penitence  and  contrition. 
Potest  enim  fieri  ut  animus  ferus  ac  barbarus  inimici,  si  sential 
beneficium  nostrum,  si  humanitaiem,  si  affectum,  si  pietaiem  videat, 
compunciionem  cordis  capiat,  commissi  poenitudinem  gerat,  et  ex  hoc 
ignis  in  eo  quidem  succendatur,  qui  eum  pro  commissi  conscientia 
torqueat  et  adurat :  et  isti  erunt  carbones  ignis,  qui  super  caput  eius 
ex  nostra  misericordiae  et pietatis  opere  congregantur,  Origen. 

21.  fif]  KiKu  uir&  ToC  KOKou  K.T.X.,  '  do  uot  allow  yourself  to  be 
overcome  by  the  evil  done  to  you  and  be  led  on  to  revenge  and 
injury,  but  conquer  your  enemies'  evil  spirit  by  your  own  good 
disposition.'  A  remark  which  applies  to  the  passage  just  con- 
cluded and  shows  St.  Paul's  object,  but  is  also  of  more  general 
application.. 

OS  OBEDIENCE  TO  BUIiEBS. 

XIII.  1-7.  The  civil  power  has  Divine  sanction.  Its 
functions  are  to  promote  well-being,  to  punish  not  the  good 
hut  the  wicked.  Hence  it  must  be  obeyed.  Obedience  to  it  it 
a  Christian  duty  and  deprives  it  of  all  its  terrors. 


306  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XIII.  1 

Se>  toe  you  pay  tribute  because  the  machinery  of  govern- 
ment is  God's  ordinance.  In  this  as  in  all  things  give  to  all 
their  due. 

XIII.  The  Apostle  now  passes  from  the  duties  of  the  individual 
Christian  towards  mankind  in  general  to  his  duties  in  one  definite 
sphere,  namely  towards  the  civil  rulers.  While  we  adhere  to  what 
has  been  said  about  the  absence  of  a  clearly-defined  system  or 
purpose  in  these  chapters,  we  may  notice  that  one  main  thread  of 
thought  which  runs  through  them  is  the  promotion  of  peace  in  all 
the  relations  of  life.  The  idea  of  the  civil  power  may  have  been 
suggested  by  ver.  19  of  the  preceding  chapter,  as  being  one  of  the 
ministers  of  the  Divine  wrath  and  retribution  (ver.  4) :  at  any  rate 
the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  passages  would  serve  to  remind  St. 
Paul's  readers  that  the  condemnation  of  individual  vengeance  and 
retaliation  does  not  apply  to  the  action  of  the  state  in  enforcing 
law  ;  for  the  state  is  God's  minister,  and  it  is  the  just  wrath  of  God 
which  is  acting  through  it. 

We  have  evidence  of  the  ase  of  tt.  8-10  by  Marcion  (Tert.  adv.  Mare. 
▼.  14)  Merita  itaque  totam  crtatoris  disciplinam  principali  praecepto  tins 
eonclusit,  Diliges  proximum  tanquam  te.  Hoc  legis  supplcmtntum  si  ex  ipsa 
lege  est,  quis  sit  deus  legis  iam  ignore.  Oq  the  rest  of  the  chapter  we  have 
no  information. 

1.  iraao  <|»uxi^ :  cf.  ii.  9.  The  Hebraism  suggests  prominently 
the  idea  of  individuality.  These  rules  apply  to  all  however  privi- 
leged, and  the  question  is  treated  from  the  point  of  view  of  indi- 
vidual duty. 

ifouaiais:  abstract  for  concrete,  *  those  In  authority';  cf.  Luke 
xii.  II ;  Tit.  iii.  i.  dircpcxouaais  'who  are  in  an  eminent  position,' 
defining  more  precisely  the  idea  of  i^owriait :  cf.  i  Pet.  ii.  13 ; 
Wisdom  vi.  5. 

uiroTaaacaOw.  Notice  the  repetition  of  words  of  similar  sound, 
vnoTa<T(Tf<T6t»  ,  .  .  Tirayfifpoi  .  .  .  dvriTaaa6fitvos  ...  dtaray^,  and  cf 
xii.  3. 

ou  Y^p  i<rr^r  iiouala  k.t.X.  The  Apostle  gives  the  reason  for 
this  obedience,  stating  it  first  generally  and  positively,  then  nega- 
tively and  distribntively.  No  human  authority  can  exist  except  as 
the  eift  of  God  and  springing  from  Him,  and  therefore  all  consti- 
tuted powers  are  ordained  by  Him.  The  maxim  is  common  in  all 
Hebrew  literature,  but  is  almost  always  introduced  to  show  how 
the  Divine  power  is  greater  than  that  of  all  earthly  sovereigns,  or 
to  declare  the  obligation  of  rulers  as  responsible  for  all  they  do  to 
One  above  them.     Wisdom  vi.  i,  3  dKoCaart  oZv,  /SatriXfIt,  koI  ovvtrt, 

fuldfTt  biKaaral  rrtpdrtep  yijs  .   ,  ,   on  tdodij  rrapd  tov  Kvpiov  17  Kpanjait 
ifiiv  Koi  fj   ivvatrrtia  vapa   ii/rtorow  :   £nOch  xlvi.  5  *  And  he  wlll   pUt 

down  the  kings  from  their  thrones  and  kingdoms,  because  the/  do 


Xm.  1-4.]       ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS  ^^ 

not  extol  and  praise  him,  nor  thankfully  acknowledge  whence  the 
kingdom  was  bestowed  upon  them' :  Jos.  Bell.Jud.  II.  viii.  7  rh  ni<TT6i> 
nape^eiv  na<Ti,  ftaXiara  di  Tois  Kparovaiv'  ov  yap  dixa  Qfov  n(piylyt<r6cu 
nvt  tA  apxdv.  St.  Paul  adopts  the  maxim  for  a  purpose  similar  to 
that  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  last  instance,  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
subjects  to  obey  their  rulers,  because  they  are  appointed  and 
ordained  by  God. 

The  preponderance  of  anthority  (K  A  B  L  P  and  many  later  MSS.,  Baa. 
Chrys.)  is  decisive  for  f I  fifi  Inb  0fov.  The  Western  reading  dtro  0«oC  wai 
a  correction  for  the  less  usual  expression  (DEFG  and  many  later  MSS., 
Grig.  Jo.-Damasc).  The  reading  of  the  end  of  the  verse  should  be  ai  8^ 
oSaat  vvo  @(ov  rtray^fvat  tlaiv  N  A  B  D  F  G. 

2.  wore  6  dmriraaacSficKos  k.t.X.  The  logical  result  of  this 
theory  as  to  the  origin  of  human  power  is  that  resistance  to  it 
is  resistance  to  the  ordering  of  God  ;  and  hence  those  who  resist  will 
receive  Kplfia — a  judgement  or  condemnation  which  is  human,  for  it 
comes  through  human  instruments,  but  Divine  as  having  its  origin 
and  source  in  God.  There  is  no  reference  here  to  eternal  punish- 
ment. 

8.  ol  Y^P  5pxotn"<s.  The  plural  shows  that  the  Apostle  is 
speaking  quite  generally.  He  is  arguing  out  the  duty  of  obeying 
rulers  on  general  principles,  deduced  from  the  fact  that  '  the  state  ' 
exists  for  a  beneficent  end  ;  he  is  not  arguing  from  the  special 
condition  or  circumstances  of  any  one  state.  The  social  organism, 
as  a  modern  writer  might  say,  is  a  power  on  the  side  of  good. 

Tw  dyaGw  Ipyw  :   cf.    ii.  7   ''■"'^  f-^"   ''"^'  i>Ttoixovriv  tpyov  dyadou       In 

)0th  passages  ipyov  is  used  collectively;  there  it  means  the  sum 
of  a  man's  actions,  here  the  collective  work  of  the  state.  For  the 
subject  cf.  I  Tim.  ii.  i,  a  :  we  are  to  pray  'for  kings  and  all  in 
authority  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  hfe  in  all  godli- 
ness and  honesty.' 

The  singular  ry  iiyaOS  tpy(p  &KKA  t^  kolk^  is  read  by  R  A  B  D  F  G  P,  Boh. 
Vulg.  i^boni  optris  sed  mali),  Clem.-Alex.  Iren.-lat.  Tert.  Orig  -lat.  Jo.- 
Damasa  Later  MSS.  with  E  L,  Syrr.  Arm.,  Chrys.  Thdrt.  read  ruiv  dyaOuv 
Ipywv  .  .  .  KaKow.  Hoit  suggests  an  emendation  of  Patrick  Young,  ry 
i,yadoipiy<f,  which  has  some  support  apparently  from  the  Aeth.  ti  qui  facit 
honum :  but  the  antithesis  with  KaK^  makes  this  correction  improbable. 

6A6IS  Se  .  . .  i%wQ\.wf ;  The  construction  is  more  pointed  if  these 
words  are  made  a  question. 

As  the  state  exists  for  a  good  end,  if  you  lead  a  peaceable  life 
you  will  have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  civil  power. 

4.  @eoG  ydp  SidKoi^s  ^<m.  Fem.  to  agree  with  i^ovaia,  which 
throughout  is  almost  personified.  <roi,  *  for  thee,'  ethical,  for  thy 
advantage.  «is  ri  dyaOdf, '  for  the  good,'  to  promote  good,  existing 
for  a  good  end. 

■^v  |*dxaipaK.  The  sword  is  the  symbol  of  the  executive  and 
eriminal  jurisdiction  of  a  magistrate,  and  is  therefore  used  of  the 


$6S  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XIII.  4-7. 

power  of  punishing   inherent  in  the  government     So  Ulpian, 
Dtges/,  i.  1 8.  6.  §  8 ;  Tac.  /Its/,  iii.  68  ;  Dio  Cassias,  xlii.  17. 

ckSikos  ti$  ipyf^y,  '  inflicting  punishment  or  vengeance  so  as  to 
exhibit  wrath,'  namely  the  Divine  wrath  as  administered  by  the 
ruler  who  is  God's  agent  (cf.  ver.  a  and  xii.  19).  The  repetition  of 
the  phrase  Otov  duiKovos  with  both  sides  of  the  sentence  emphasizes 
the  double  purpose  of  the  state.  It  exists  positively  for  the  well- 
being  of  the  community,  negatively  to  check  evil  by  the  infliction 
of  punishment,  and  both  these  functions  are  derived  from  God, 

5.  816:  rulers,  because  as  God's  minit^ters  they  have  a  Divine 
order  and  purpose,  are  to  be  obeyed,  not  only  because  they  have 
power  over  men,  but  also  because  it  is  right,  dta  njc  invfidrjauf  (cf. 
ii.  15,  ix.  i). 

6.  8icl  TouTo  Y«tp  »oi,  sc.  dta  Tfjv  <rvvtihi)(riv :  '  and  it  is  for  this 
reason  also.'  St.  Paul  is  appealing  to  a  principle  which  his  readers 
will  recognize.  It  is  apparently  an  admitted  rule  of  the  Christian 
communities  that  taxes  are  to  be  paid,  and  he  points  out  that  the 
principle  is  thus  recognized  of  the  moral  duty  of  obeying  rulers. 
That  he  could  thus  appeal  to  a  recognized  practice  seems  to  imply 
that  the  words  of  our  Lord  (Luke  xx.  20-25)  had  moulded  the 
habits  of  the  early  Church,  and  this  suggestion  is  corroborated  by 
ver.  7  (see  the  longer  note  below). 

XeiToupyoi,  '  God's  ministers.'  Although  the  word  is  used  in 
a  purely  secular  sense  of  a  servant,  whether  of  an  individual  or  of 
a  community  (i  Kings  x.  5;  Ecclus.  x.  2),  yet  the  very  definite 
meaning  which  Xtirovpyos  Qeov  had  acquired  (Ecclus  vii.  30;  Heb. 
viii.  2  ;  see  especially  the  note  on  Rom.  xv.  16)  adds  emphasis  to 
St.  Paul's  expression. 

irpoCTKapTcpourres  must  apparently  be  taken  absolutely  (as  in 
Xen.  Ne/L  VII.  v.  14),  *  persevering  faithfully  in  their  oflice/  and 
CIS  aoT6  TOUTO  gives  the  purpose  of  the  office,  the  same  as  that 
ascribed  above  to  the  state.  These  words  cannot  be  taken  im- 
mediately with  npoaKapTfpovvTtt,  for  that  verb,  as  in  xiL  13,  seems 
always  to  govern  the  dative. 

7.  St.  Paul  concludes  this  subject  and  leads  on  to  the  next  by 
a  general  maxim  which  covers  all  the  diflferent  points  touched 
upon  :  '  Pay  each  one  his  due.' 

Tu  rby  ^6pov,  sc.  dnaiToiini.  ifiopot  is  the  tribute  paid  by  a  subject 
nation  (Luke  xx.  22  ;  i  Mace.  x.  33),  while  tcXoj  represents  the 
customs  and  dues  which  would  in  any  case  be  paid  for  the  support 
of  the  civil  government  (Matt.  xvii.  25;  i  Mace.  x.  31). 

4)oPos  is  ilie  respectful  awe  which  is  felt  for  one  who  has  power 
in  his  hands ;  npi'jv  honour  and  reverence  paid  to  a  ruler :  cf.  i  Pel. 

ii.  1 7  '''ov  Oti)v  (ptifidtrOe'   tov  jSatrtXta  rifiart. 

A  strange  interpretation  of  this  verse  may  be  seen  in  the 
Gnostic  book  entided  Ulartt  So^io,  p.  294,  ed.  Schwartze. 


XIII.  1-7.]         ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS  369 


Tfu  Church  and  tht  Civil  Power, 

The  motive  which  impelled  St.  Paul  to  write  this  section  of  the 
Epistle  has  (like  so  many  other  quesiions)  been  discussed  at  great 
length  with  the  object  of  throwing  light  on  the  composition  of  the 
Roman  Church.  If  the  opinion  which  has  been  propounded  already 
in  reference  to  these  chapters  be  correct,  it  will  be  obvious  that 
Jiere  as  elsewhere  St._Pa.ul  is  writing,  primarily  at  any  rate,  with 

Ja_vTpvfyrrtKg'gfaf<>  ftf  the^jChuTch-  Ji»-a-whole,  not  to  the  particular 
circumstances  of  the  Roman  community :  it  being  recognized  at 
^e  same~"tTme:  that  questions  which  agitated  the  whole  Christian 
world^  would  be  likely  to  be  reflected  in  what  was  already  an 

"TnipOrtaiit  centre  of  Christianity.     Whether  this  opinion  be  correct 

•  or  hgr  mustniepend-partly,  of  course,  on  our  estimate  of  the 
Epistle  as  a  whole ;  but  if  it  be  assumed  to  be  so,  the  character  of 
this  passage  will  amply  support  it.    There  is  a  complete  absgnce  o" 

.any  reference  to  particular  circumstances:  the  language  is  tErougS 
out  general :  there  is  a  stuHied  avoidance  of  any  special  terms 
direct  commands  such  as  might  arise  from  particular  circumstances 
are  not  given :  but  general  principles  applicable  to  any  period  or 
place  are  laid  down.  As  elsewhere  in  this  Epistle,  St.  Paul, 
influenced  by  his  past  experiences,  or  by  the  questions  which  were 
being  agitated  around  him,  or  by  the  fear  of  difficulties  which  he 
foresaw  as  likely  to  arise,  lays  down  broad  general  principles, 
applying  to  the  affairs  of  life  the  spirit  of  Christianity  as  he  has 
elucidated  it 

But  what  were  the  questions  that  were  in  the  air  when  he  wrote  ? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  primarily  they  would  be  those 
current  in  the  Jewish  nation  concerning  the  lawfulness  of  paying 
taxes  and  otherwise  recognizing  the  authority  of  a  foreign  ruler. 
When  our  Lord  was  asked,  '  Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar 
or  no?'  (Matt.  xxii.  18  f.;  Luke  xx.  %%  f.),  a  burning  question 
was  at  once  raised.  Starting  from  the  express  command  '  thou 
mayest  not  put  a  foreigner  over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother ' 
(Deut  xvii.  15),  and  from  the  idea  of  a  Divine  theocracy,  a  large  . 

.^section  of  the  Jews  had  refused  to  recognize^,or-^)ay^taxes  to-ihfL. 
Roman  goverrgnentrjnda^the^aulonite,  who  said  that  'the 
census  was  nothing  else  but  downright  slavery '  (Jos.  AnL  XVIII. 
i.  i),  or  Theudas  (ibid.  XX.  v.  i),  or  Eleazar,  who  is  represented 
as  saying  that  'we  have  long  since  made  up  our  minds  not  to 
serve  the  Romans  or  any  other  man  but  God  alone  '  {Bell.  Jud. 
VII.  viii.  6),  may  all  serve  as  instances  of  a  tendency  which  was 
very  wide  spread.  Nor  was  this  spirit  confined  to  the  Jews  of 
Palestine ;  elsewhere,  both  in  Rome  and  in  Alexandria,  riots  had 
occurred.    Nor  again  was  it  unlikely  that  Christianity  would  be 


ot 


370  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [XIH.  1-9- 

affected  by  it  A  good  deal  of  the  phraseology  of  the  early 
Christians  was  derived  from  the  Messianic  prophecies  of  the 
O.  T.,  and  these  were  always  liable  to  be  taken  in  that 
purely  material  sense  which  our  Lord  bed  condemned.  The  fact 
that  St.  Luke  records  the  question  of  the  disciples,  '  Lord,  dost 
thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ? '  (Acts  i.  6)  seems 
to  imply  that  such  ideas  were  current,  and  the  incident  at  Thessalo- 
nica,  where  St.  Paul  himself,  because  he  preached  the  '  kingdom,' 
was  accused  of  preaching  '  another  king,  one  Jesus,'  shows  how 
liable  even  he  was  to  misinterpretation.  These  instances  are  quite 
sufficient  to  explain  how  the  question  was  a  real  one  when  St. 
Paul  wrote,  and  why  it  had  occupied  his  thoughts.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  refer  it  either  to  Ebionite  dualistic  views  (so  Baur), 
which  would  involve  an  anachronism,  or  to  exaggerated  Gentile 
ideas  of  Christian  liberty ;  we  have  no  record  that  these  were  ever 
perverted  in  this  direction. 

Two  considerations  may  have  specially  influenced  St.  Paul  to 
discuss  the  subject  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The  first  was 
the  known  fact  of  the  turbulence  of  the  Roman  Jews;  a  fact  which 
would  be  brought  before  him  by  his  intercourse  with  Priscilla  and 
Aquila.  This  may  illustrate  just  the  degree  of  local  reference  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  We  have  emphasized  more  than  once 
the  fact  that  we  cannot  argue  anything  from  such  passages  as  this 
as  to  the  state  of  the  Roman  community ;  but  St.  Paul  would  not 
write  in  the  air,  and  th;^  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  Jewish 
population  in  Rome  gained  from  political  refugees  would  be  just 
sufficient  to  suggest  this  topic.  A  second  cause  which  would  lead 
him  to  introduce  it  would  be  the  fascination  which  he  felt  for  the 
power  and  position  of  Rome,  a  fascination  which  has  been  alr«u)y 
illustrated  (Introduction,  §  i). 

It  must  be  remembered  that  when  this  Epi8tle_wag  writtcji-ihe 
Roman  Empire  had  never  appeared  in  the  character  of  a  persecutor- 
Persecution  had  up  to  this  time  always  come  from  the  Jews  or  from 
popular  riots.  To  St.  Paul  the  magistrates  who  represented 
the  Roman  power  had  always  been  associated  with  order  and 
restraint.  The  persecution  of  Stephen  had  probably  taken  place 
in  the  absence  of  the  Roman  governor ;  it  was  at  the  hands  of  the 
Jewish  king  Herod  that  James  the  brother  of  John  had  perished : 
at  Paphos,  at  Thessalonica,  at  Corinth,  at  Ephesus,  St  Paul  had 
found  the  Roman  officials  a  restraining  power  and  all  his  experience 
would  support  the  statements  that  he  makes  :  '  The  rulers  are  not 
a  terror  to  the  good  work,  but  to  the  evil : '  *  He  is  a  minister  of 
God  to  thee  for  good : '  '  He  is  a  minister  of  God,  an  avenger  for 
wrath  to  him  that  doeth  evil.'  Nor  can  any  rhetorical  point  be 
made  as  has  been  attempted  from  the  fact  that  Nero  was  at  thii 
time  *he  ruler  of  the  Empire.   It  may  be  doubted  how  far  the  vioet 


sin    1-7.]         ON  OBEDIENCE  TO  RULERS  57I 

oi  a  ruler  like  Nero  seriously  affected  the  well-being  of  the 
provincials,  but  at  any  rate  when  these  words  were  written  the 
world  was  enjoying  the  good  government  and  bright  hopes  of 
Nero's  Quinquennium. 

The  true  relations  of  Christianity  to  the  civil  power  had  been 
laid  down  by  our  Lord  when  He  had  said  :  '  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  world,'  and  again :  '  Render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that  be 
Caesar's  and  to  God  the  things  that  be  God's.'  It  is  difRcult  to 
believe  that  St.  Paul  had  not  these  words  in  his  mind  when  he 
wrote  ver.  7,  especially  as  the  coincidences  with  the  moral  teaching 
of  our  Lord  are  numerous  in  these  chapters.  At  any  rate,  starting 
from  this  idea  he  works  out  the  principles  which  must  lie  at  the 
basis  of  Christian  politics,  that  the  State  is  divinely  appointed,  or 
permitted  by  God ;  that  its  end  is  beneficent ;  and  that  the  spheres 
of  Church  and  State  areTiot  idenlical. 

It  has  been  remarked  that,  when  St.  Paul  wrote,  his  experience 
might  have  induced  him  to  estimate  too  highly  the  merits  of  the 
Roman  government.  But  although  later  the  relation  of  the  Church 
to. the  State  changed,  the  principles  of  the  Church  did  not.  In 
I  Tim.  ii.  I,  2  the  Apostle  gives  a  very  clear  command  to  pray  for 
those  in  authority :  '  I  exhort  therefore,  first  of  all,  that  supplications, 
prayers,  intercessions,  thanksgivings,  be  made  for  all  men:  for 
kings  and  all  that  are  in  high  place  ;  that  we  may  lead  a  tranquil 
and  quiet  life  in  all  godliness  and  gravity ' ;  so  also  in  Titus  iiL  i 
'  Put  them  in  mind  to  be  in  subjection  to  rulers,  to  authorities.' 
When  these  words  were  written,  the  writer  had  to  some  extent  at 
any  rate  experienced  the  Roman  power  in  a  very  different  aspect 
Still  more  important  is  the  evidence  of  1  Peter.  It  was  certainly 
written  at  a  time  when  persecution,  and  that  of  an  oflRcial  character, 
had  begun,  yet  the  commands  of  St.  Paul  are  repeated  and  with 
even  greater  emphasis  (i  Pet.  ii.  13-17). 

The  sob- Apostolic  literature  will  illustrate  this.  Clement  is  writing  to  the 
Corinthians  just  after  snccessivc  periods  of  persecation,  yet  he  includes 
•  prayer  of  the  character  which  he  would  himself  deliver,  in  the  as  yet 
unsystematized  services  of  the  day,  on  behalf  of  secular  rulers.  '  Give 
concord  and  peace  to  us  and  to  all  that  dwell  on  the  earth  .  .  .  while  we 
render  obedience  to  Thine  Almighty  and  most  excellent  Name,  and  to  our 
rulers  and  governors  upon  the  earth.  Thou,  Lord  and  Master,  hast  given 
them  the  power  of  sovereignty  through  Thine  excellent  and  unspeakable 
might,  that  we,  knowing  the  glory  and  honour  which  Thou  hast  given  them, 
may  submit  ourselves  unto  them,  in  nothing  resisting  Thy  will.  Grant  unto 
them  therefore,  O  Lord,  health,  peace,  concord,  stability,  that  they  may 
administer  the  government  which  Thou  hast  given  them  without  failuie. 
For  Thou,  O  heavenly  Master,  King  of  the  ages,  givest  to  the  sons  of  men 
glory  and  honour  and  power  over  all  things  that  are  upon  the  earth.  Do 
Thou,  Lord,  direct  their  counsel  according  to  that  which  is  good  and  well- 
pleasing  in  Thy  sight.'  Still  more  significant  is  the  letter  of  Polycarp,  which 
was  written  very  shortly  after  he  had  met  Ignatius  on  his  road  to  martyrdom ; 
'•  k  h*  emphasises  the  Christian  custom  by  combining  the  command  to  pray 

■  lit 


573  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [ZIU.  1  7 

for  nUn  with  Aat  to  lav*  our  enemiet.  '  Pray  alio  for  kings  and  powen 
and  princes  and  for  them  that  persecute  and  hate  jron  and  for  the  enemies  vi 
the  cross,  that  your  frait  may  be  manifest  among  all  men  that  ye  may  be 
perfect  in  Him.'    (Clem.  Rom.  Ix,  Ixi ;  Polyc.  ml  Pkil.  xii.) 

It  is  not  necessary  to  give  further  instances  of  a  custom  which  prevailed 
emtensively  or  universally  in  the  early  Church.  It  became  a  commonplace 
of  apologists  1  Just.  Mart.  Apol.  i.  1 7 ;  Athenagoras,  Leg.  xxrvii ;  Theophilus, 
i.  1 1 ;  Tertullian,  Apol.  30,  i%ad  Scap.  a  ;  Dion.  Alex,  ap  Eus.  H.  E.  VII.  xi ; 
Amob.  iv.  36)  and  is  found  in  all  liturgies  (cf.  Cotut.  Ap.  viii.  1  a). 

One  particular  phase  in  the  interpretation  of  this  chapter  demands  a  passing 
ootice.  In  the  hands  of  the  Jacobean  and  Caroline  divines  it  was  held  to 
support  the  doctrine  of  Passive  Obedience.  This  doctrine  has  taken  a  variety 
of  forms.  Some  held  that  a  Monarchy  as  opposed  to  a  Republic  is  the  only 
scriptural  form  of  government,  others  that  a  legitimate  line  alone  has  this 
divine  right.  A  more  modified  type  of  this  teaching  may  be  represented  by 
a  sermon  of  Bishop  Berkeley  {Passiv*  Odedumt  or  tht  Christian  Doctrine 
of  not  resisting  the  aupreme  power,  proved  and  vindicated  upon  the  principles 
if  tht  law  of  nature  in  a  discourse  delivered  eU  the  College  Chapel,  171  a. 
Works,  iii.  p.  loi).  He  takes  as  his  text  Rom.  xiii.  a  'Whosoever  resisteth 
the  Power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God.*  He  begins  '  It  is  not  my  design 
to  inquire  into  the  particular  nature  of  the  govemmeat  and  constitution  of 
these  kingdoms."  He  then  proceeds  by  assuming  that '  there  is  in  every  civil 
community,  somewhere  or  other,  placed  a  supreme  power  of  making  laws, 
and  enforcing  the  observation  of  them.'  His  main  purpose  is  to  prove  that 
'Loyalty  is  a  moral  virtue,  and  thou  shalt  not  resist  the  supreme  power, 
•  rule  or  law  of  nature,  the  least  breach  whereof  hath  the  inherent  stain  of 
moral  turpitude.'  And  he  places  it  on  the  same  level  as  the  commandments 
which  St.  Paul  quotes  in  this  same  chapter. 

Bishop  Berkeley  represents  the  doctrine  of  Passive  Obedience  as  expounded 
in  its  most  philosophical  form.  But  he  does  not  notice  the  main  difficulty. 
St.  Paul  gives  no  directions  as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  when  there  is 
a  conflict  of  authority.  In  his  day  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  the  rule  of 
Caesar  was  supreme  and  had  become  legitimate:  all  that  he  had  to  con- 
demn was  an  incorrect  view  of  the  '  kingdom  of  heaven '  as  a  theocracy 
established  on  earth,  whether  it  were  held  by  Jewish  realots  or  by  Christians. 
He  does  not  discuss  the  question,  '  if  there  were  two  claimants  for  the 
Empire  which  should  be  supported?*  for  it  was  not  a  practical  difficulty 
when  he  wrote.  So  Bishop  Berkeley,  by  his  use  of  the  expression  '  some- 
where or  other,'  equally  evades  the  difficulty.  Almost  always  when  there  is 
a  rebellion  or  a  civil  war  the  question  at  issue  is,  Who  is  the  rightful 
governor  ?  which  is  the  power  ordained  by  God  ? 

But  there  is  a  side  of  the  doctrine  of  Passive  Obedience  which  requires 
emphasis,  and  which  was  illustrated  by  the  Christianity  of  the  first  three 
centuries.  The  early  Christians  were  subject  to  a  power  which  required 
them  to  do  that  which  was  forbidden  by  their  religion.  To  that  extent 
and  within  those  limits  they  could  not  and  did  not  obey  it ;  but  they  never 
encouraged  in  any  way  resistance  or  rebellion.  In  all  things  indifferent  the 
Christian  conformed  to  existing  law ;  he  obeyed  the  law  '  not  only  because  of 
the  wrath,  but  also  for  conscience  sake.'  He  only  disobeyed  when  it  was 
necessary  to  do  so  for  conscience  sake.  The  point  of  importance  is  the 
detachment  of  the  two  spheres  of  activity.  The  Church  and  the  State  are 
looked  upon  as  different  bodies,  each  with  a  different  work  to  perform.  To 
designate  this  or  that  form  of  government  as  '  Christian,'  and  support  it  on 
these  grounds,  would  have  been  quite  alien  to  the  whole  spirit  of  those  day*. 
The  Church  must  influence  the  world  by  its  hold  oa  tht  btarts  and  consdencei 
<A  individuals,  and  in  that  way,  ud  aot  bjr  p>>itkal  powv,  will  tiM 
Kingdom  of  God  come. 


XIII.  8,  9.]     LOVE  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  ALL  LAW     373 


LOVE  THE  PUIiPrLMBNT   OP  ALL  LAW. 

XIII.  8-10.  There  is  one  debt  which  the  Christian  must 
always  be  paying  but  never  can  discharge,  that  of  love.  All 
particular  precepts  are  summed  up  in  that  of  lovi,  which 
makes  injury  to  any  man  impossible. 

8.  St.  Paul  passes  from  our  duties  towards  superiors  to  that  one 
principle  which  must  control  our  relations  towards  all  men,  love.  In 
xii.  9  the  principle  of  love  is  introduced  as  the  true  solution  of  all 
difiiculties  which  may  arise  from  rivalry  in  the  community;  here  it 
is  represented  as  at  the  root  of  all  regulations  as  to  our  relations  to 
others  in  any  of  the  affairs  of  Ufe. 

litlScfi  |iT)Sei'  d(j>ei\€Tf  must  be  imperative  as  the  negatives  show. 
It  sums  up  negatively  the  results  of  the  previous  verse  and  suggests 
the  transition, '  Pay  every  one  their  due  and  owe  no  man  anything.' 

tl  |if|  th  dvoirav  dXXi^Xout :  *  Let  your  only  debt  that  is  unpaid 
be  that  of  love — a  debt  which  you  should  always  be  attempting  to 
discharge  in  full,  but  will  never  succeed  in  discharging.'  Permanere 
(amen  et  nunguam  cessare  a  nobis  dehiium  caritatis :  hoc  entm  et  quO' 
tidie  solvere  ei  semper  debere  expedit  nobis.  Orig.  By  this  pregnant 
expression  St.  Paul  suggests  both  the  obligation  of  love  and  the 
impossibility  of  fulfilling  it.  This  is  more  forcible  than  to  suppose 
a  change  in  the  meaning  of  o^ciXcr* :  '  Owe  no  man  anything,  only 
ye  ought  to  love  one  another.' 

6  Y&p  dyairwK  k.t.X.  gives  the  reason  why  '  love '  is  so  important : 
if  a  man  truly  loves  another  he  has  fulfilled  towards  him  the  whole 
law.  v6tLov  is  not  merely  the  Jewish  law,  although  it  is  from  it  that 
the  illustrations  that  follow  are  taken,  but  law  as  a  principle.  Just 
as  in  the  relations  of  man  and  Gcd  irlans  has  been  substituted  for 
voyMs,  so  between  man  and  man  iyami  takes  the  place  of  definite 
legal  relations.  The  perfect  vtit\ripaKtv  implies  that  the  fulfilment 
is  already  accomplished  simply  in  the  act  of  love. 

9.  St.  Paul  gives  instances  of  the  manner  in  which  '  love '  fulfils 
law.  No  man  who  loves  another  will  injure  him  by  adultery,  by 
murder,  by  theft,  &c.  They  are  all  therefcwe  summed  up  in  the 
one  maxim  '  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself,'  as  indeed 
they  were  also  in  the  Old  Covenant. 

The  AV.  adds  after  ob  itXiifitit  In  this  verse  oh  tpivSoimprvpffirtit  from  the 
O.  T.  with  K  P  &c.,  Boh.  &c.,  ai  against  A  B  D  E  F  G  L  &c.,  Vulg.  eodJ.  and 
most  Fathers,  iv  ry  before  dyanrjaen  is  omitted  by  B  F  G.  For  atavroy  of 
the  older  MSS.  (K  A  B  D  E),  later  MSS.  read  iavT6v,  both  here  and  elsewhere. 
In  late  Greek  iavroy  became  habitually  nsed  for  all  persons  in  the  reflexive^ 
and  scribes  substituted  the  form  most  usual  to  them. 

Th«  order  of  the  commandmenta  is  different  &om  that  in  the  Hebrew  text 


S74  IPISTLI  TO  THE  ROMANS       [XIO.  0,  10k 

both  in  Exodna  xs.  13  and  Dent.  t.  i^,  namely,  (6)  Thon  ahalt  do  no  mnrder, 
(7)  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  (8)  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  The  MSS 
of  the  LXX  vary ;  in  Exodu*  B  reads  7,  8,  6,  A  F  6,  7,  8 ;  in  Deut.  B  readi 
7,  6,  8  (the  order  here),  A  F  6,  7,  8.  The  order  of  Romans  is  that  also  ol 
lAkezviii.  ao;  James  ii.  11 ;  Philo  Dt  Dtcalogo;  Clem. -Alex.  Strom,  vi.  16^ 

Kai  ci  Tis  IWpa  shows  that  St.  Paul  in  this  selection  has  only 
taken  instances  and  that  he  does  not  mean  merely  to  give  a  sum- 
ming up  of  the  Jewish  law. 

dKaxc^JaXaiouTai :  a  rhetorical  term  used  of  the  summing  up  of 
a  speech  or  argument,  and  hence  of  including  a  large  number  of 
separate  details  under  one  head.  As  used  in  Eph.  i.  10  of  God 
summing  up  all  things  in  Christ  it  became  a  definite  theological 
term,  represented  in  Latin  by  recapitulatio  (Iren.  III.  xxii.  a). 

'AYaTn^ccis  T&i'  irXT)o'ioi'  <rou  As  ioMct^v.  Taken  from  Leviticas 
xiz.  18  where  it  sums  up  a  far  longer  list  of  commandments.  It 
is  quoted  Matt.  xxii.  39;  Mark  xii.  31 ;  Luke  z.  %1\  Gal.  v.  14; 
James  ii.  8  where  it  is  called  /3ao-iXi«t6f  v6\Mt. 

10.  y\  dydirt)  .  .  .  ofiic  ^pyd^eTaj.  Lc»ve  fulfls  all  law,  because  no 
one  who  loves  another  will  do  him  any  ill  by  word  or  deed.  These 
words  sum  up  what  has  been  said  at  greater  length  in  i  Cor.  xiii. 
4-6. 

irXT]pu(ia,  '  complete  fulfilment.'  The  meaning  of  wX.  here  is 
given  by  ver.  9  '  He  that  loveih  his  neighbour  has  fulfilled  (frnrXq- 
p^Kd*)  law,  therefore  love  is  the  fulfilment  (7rXt?p«/ia)  of  law. 


The  History  of  the  word  a.y&'ui\* 

There  are  three  words  in  Greek  all  of  which  may  be  translated  by  th« 
English  'love,'  kpaoi,  tpiKtw,  dyandoj.  Of  these  ipioj  with  its  cognate  form 
foanai  was  originally  associated  with  the  sexual  passion  and  was  thence 
translerred  to  any  strong  passionate  affection ;  <pi\ia)  was  used  rather  of 
warm  domestic  affection,  and  so  of  the  love  of  master  and  servant,  of  parents 
and  children,  of  husband  and  wife ;  in  Homer,  of  the  love  of  the  gods  for 
men.  ipdv  is  combined  with  iiriOvixeiv  and  contrasted  with  <pt\Hy  as  in 
Xen.  J/ier.  xi.  11  Sxtt*  oi  fioi'ov  (ptXoio  &v  d\\d  Kal  ip^o.  One  special  use 
of  tpojs  and  ipau  must  be  referred  to,  namely,  the  Platonic.  The  intensity 
and  strength  of  human  passion  seemed  to  Plato  to  represent  most  adequately 
the  love  of  the  soul  for  higher  things,  and  so  the  philosophic  ipui  was  used 
for  the  highest  human  desire,  that  for  true  knowledge,  true  virtue,  true 
Immortality. 

The  distinction  of  <(n\{o)  and  dYav<ia>  much  resembled  that  between  mm0 
and  diligo.  The  one  expressed  greater  affection,  the  other  greater  esteem. 
So  Dio  Cassius  xliv.  48  (^i^rjaart  avriv  in  naripa  xai  i^yaTrjcart  As  tvtp- 
yirrjv;  and  John  xxi.  15-17  ^iyu  air^  wikiy  dtvrtpow,  j^ficor  "lativov, 
dyawq.t  fit ;  A.«7«<  avT^,  Na«,  Kvpif  vv  oldas  Srt  (pt\S>  at  tc.r.X.  (see  Trench, 
Sjm.  §  xii).  It  is  significant  that  no  distinction  is  absolute;  but  ^Xiv 
occasionally,  still  more  rarely  dyairdoi,  are  both  used  incorrectly  of  the 
sexual  passion.  There  is  too  close  a  connexion  between  the  different  forma 
of  human  affection  to  allow  any  rigid  distinction  to  be  made  in  the  use  ol 
trords. 

When  these  words  were  adopted  into  Hellenistic  Gredc,  «  gradual  ebanfe 


XIII.  8-10.]     LOVE  THE  FULFILMENT  OF  ALL  LAW        375 

wms  made  in  their  use.  tpiot  and  its  cognates  are  very  rarely  nsed,  and 
almost  invariably  in  a  bad  sense.  In  the  N.  T.  they  do  not  occur  at  all.  the 
word  tiriOv/xfOj  being  employed  instead.  Yet  occasionally,  even  in  biblical 
and  ecclesiastical  Greek,  the  higher  sense  of  the  Platonic  t'/xus  finds  a  place 
(Prov.  It.  6;  Wisdom  viii.  2  ;  Justin,  JDia/.  8,  p.  225  B  ;  Clem.- Alex.  Cok. 
II,  p.  90;  see  Lightfoot,  Ignatius  ad  Rom.  vii.  3).  Between  dvaTratu  and 
^iXlot  a  decided  preference  was  shown  for  the  former.  It  occurs  about 
a68  times  (Hatch  and  Rcdpath)  in  a  very  large  proportion  of  cases  as  a 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  3nK ;  <pt\io)  about  twelve  times  (Trommius),  ex- 
cluding its  use  as  equivalent  to  tsculor.  This  choice  was  largely  due  to  the 
use  of  the  Hebrew  word  to  express  the  love  of  God  to  man,  and  of  man  to 
God  (Deut.  xxiii.  5;  xxx.  6;  Hosea  iii.  i);  it  was  felt  that  the  greatei 
amount  of  intellectual  desire  and  the  greater  severity  implied  in  u7a7rdcu  fitted 
it  better  than  <pL\iiu  for  this  purpose.  But  while  it  was  elevated  in  meaning 
it  was  also  broadened ;  it  is  used  not  only  of  the  love  of  father  and  son,  oi 
husband  and  wife,  but  also  of  the  love  of  Samson  for  Delilah  (Jud.  xvi.  4) 
and  of  Hosea's  love  for  his  adulterous  wife  (Hos.  iii.  i).  Nor  can  there  be  any 
donbt  that  to  Hebrew  writers  there  was  in  a  pure  love  of  God  or  of  righteous- 
ness something  of  the  intensity  which  is  the  highest  characteristic  of  human 
passion  (Is.  Ixii.  5).  irfOMio)  in  the  LXX  corresponds  in  all  its  characteristics 
to  the  English  '  love." 

But  not  only  did  the  LXX  use  modify  the  meaning  of  d7an-da>,  it  created 
a  new  word  d7d»i7.  Some  method  was  required  of  expressing  the  conception 
which  was  gradually  growing  up.  'Epous  had  too  sordid  associations.  4>(Aia 
was  tried  (Wisdom  vii.  14;  viii.  18),  but  was  felt  to  be  inadequate.  The 
language  of  the  Song  of  Solomon  created  the  demand  for  a-^airT].  (2  Kings 
I  or  a  times ;  Ecclesiastet  3 ;  Canticles  1 1 ;  Wisdom  3  ;  Ecclus.  i ;  Jeremiah  i ; 
Pi.  Sol.  I.) 

The  N.T.  reproduces  the  usage  of  the  LXX,  but  somewhat  modified. 
While  ar^anao)  is  used  138  times,  (piKtoi  is  used  in  this  sense  23  times  (,13  in 
St.  John's  Gospel) ;  generally  when  special  emphasis  has  to  be  laid  on  the 
relations  of  father  and  son.  But  the  most  marked  change  is  in  the  use  of 
ovdm;.  It  is  never  used  in  the  Classical  wTiters,  only  occasionally  in  the 
LXX ;  in  early  Christian  writers  its  use  becomes  habitual  and  general. 
Nothing  could  show  more  clearly  that  a  new  principle  has  been  created  than 
this  creation  of  a  new  word. 

In  the  Vulgate  dfim]  is  sometimes  rendered  by  dileciio,  sometimes  by 
taritat;  to  this  inconsistency  are  due  the  variations  in  the  Enr;lish 
Authorized  Version.  The  word  caritas  passed  into  English  in  the  Middle 
Ages  (for  details  see  Eng.  Diet,  sub  vac.)  in  the  form  'charity,  and  was  for 
some  time  used  to  correspond  to  most  of  the  meanings  of  d-^dnr] ;  but  as  the 
English  Version  was  inconsistent  and  no  corresponding  verb  existed  the 
usage  did  not  remain  wide.  In  spite  of  its  retention  in  i  Cor.  xiii.  'charity' 
became  confined  in  all  ordinary  phraseology  to  '  benevolence,'  and  the 
Revised  Version  was  compelled  to  make  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament 
consistent. 

Whatever  loss  there  may  have  been  in  association  and  in  the  rhythm  of 
well-known  passages,  there  is  an  undoubted  gain.  The  history  of  the  word 
ifavdat  is  that  of  the  collection  under  one  head  of  various  conceptions  which 
were  at  any  rate  partially  separated,  and  the  usage  of  the  N.  T.  shows  that 
the  distinction  which  has  to  be  made  is  not  between  <pi\f(u,  dyandw  and 
ipdu,  but  between  d7din7  and  (mdv/xia.  The  English  language  makes  this 
distinction  between  the  affection  or  passion  in  any  form,  and  a  purely  animal 
desire,  quite  plain ;  although  it  may  be  obliterated  at  times  by  a  natural 
euphemism.  But  setting  aside  this  distinction  which  must  be  occasionally 
present  to  the  mind,  but  which  need  not  be  often  spoken  of,  Christianity  does 
Bot  shrink  from  declaring  that  in  all  fomas  of  htmnan  passion  and  affection 


576  XPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [ZIII.  8-10. 

which  are  not  purely  animal  there  is  present  that  lame  love  which  in  itt 

highest  and  most  pure  development  forms  the  essence  and  aom  of  the 
Christian  religion.  This  affection,  horwever  perverted  it  may  b«,  Christianity 
does  not  condemn,  bat  so  far  aa  may  be  elevates  and  porifiei. 


Tht  Christian  Teaching  #»  Lovt, 

The  somewhat  lengthy  history  just  given  of  the  word  <lytJinj  It 
a  suitable  introduction  to  the  history  of  an  idea  which  forms  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  all  Christian  thought 

The  duty  of  love  in  some  form  or  other  had  been  a  common- 
place of  moral  teaching  in  times  long  before  Christianity  and  in 
many  different  places.  Isolated  maxims  have  been  collected  in  its 
favour  from  very  varied  authors,  and  the  highest  pagan  teaching 
approaches  the  highest  Christian  doctrine.  But  in  all  previous 
philosophy  such  teaching  was  partial  or  isolated,  it  was  never 
elevated  to  a  great  principle.  Maxims  almost  or  quite  on  a  level 
with  those  of  Christianity  we  find  both  in  the  O.  T.  and  in  Jewish 
writers.  The  command  '  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thy- 
self is  of  course  taken  directly  from  the  O.  T.,  and  is  there  used 
to  sum  up  in  one  general  principle  a  long  series  of  rules.  Sayings 
of  great  beauty  are  quoted  from  the  Jewish  fathers.  '  Hillel  said. 
Be  of  the  disciples  of  Aaron,  loving  peace  and  pursuing  peace, 
loving  mankind  and  bringing  them  nigh  to  the  Torah'  {Pirqt 
Aboth  i.  13);  or  again,  'What  is  hateful  to  thyself  do  not  to  thy 
fellow;  this  is  the  whole  Torah,  and  the  rest  is  commentary;  go 
study,'  also  ascribed  to  Hillel.  It  is  however  true  in  all  cases  that 
these  maxims,  and  all  such  as  these,  are  only  isolated  instances,  that 
they  do  not  represent  the  spirit  of  earlier  institutions,  and  that  they 
form  a  very  insignificant  proportion  compared  with  much  of 
a  different  character. 

In  Christianity  this  principle,  which  had  been  only  partially 
understood  and  imperfectly  taught,  which  was  known  only  in 
isolated  examples,  yet  testified  to  a  universal  instinct,  was  finally 
put  forward  as  the  paramount  principle  of  moral  conduct,  miiting 
our  moral  instincts  with  our  highest  religious  principles.  A  new 
virtue,  or  rather  one  hitherto  imperfectly  understood,  had  become 
recognized  as  the  root  of  all  virtues,  and  a  new  name  was  demanded 
for  what  was  practically  a  new  idea. 

In  the  first  place,  the  new  Christian  doctrine  of  love  is  universal 
'  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  and 
hate  thine  enemy :  but  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies,  and 
pray  for  them  that  persecute  you ;  *  and  a  very  definite  reason  is 
given,  the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God.  This  universalism  which 
underlies  all  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  put  in  a  definite  practical 
form  by  St.  Paul.  '  In  Chnst  Jesus  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile, 


XIIL  U.]  THE  DAY  IS  AT  HAND  577 

bond  nor  free,  male  nor  female/  As  it  i'a  summed  up  in  a  well* 
known  work  :  '  The  first  law,  then,  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  that 
all  men,  however  divided  from  each  other  b>  blood  or  language, 
have  certain  mutual  duties  arising  out  of  their  common  relation  to 
God '  {Ecct  HomOt  chap.  xii). 

But  secondly,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  love  was  the  substitution 
of  a  universal  principle  for  law.  All  moral  precepts  are  summed 
up  in  the  one  command  of  love.  What  is  my  duty  towards  others  ? 
Just  that  feeling  which  you  have  towards  the  persons  to  whom  you 
are  most  attached  in  the  world,  just  that  you  must  feel  for  every  one. 
If  you  have  that  feeling  there  will  be  no  need  for  any  further 
command.  Love  is  a  principle  and  a  passion,  and  as  such  is  the 
fulfilment  of  the  Law.  Christ  '  declared  an  ardent,  passionate,  or 
devoted  state  of  mind  to  be  the  root  of  virtue ' ;  and  this  purifying 
passion,  capable  of  existing  in  all  men  alike,  will  be  able  to  re- 
deem our  nature  and  make  laws  superfluous. 

And  thirdly,  how  is  this  new  Christian  spirit  possible?  It  is 
possible  because  it  is  intimately  bound  up  with  that  love  which  is 
a  characteristic  of  the  Godhead.  «God  is  love.'  'A  new  com- 
mandment I  give  to  you,  that  ye  should  love  one  another  as  I  have 
loved  you.'  It  is  possible  also  because  men  have  learnt  to  love 
mankind  in  Christ  *  Where  the  precept  of  love  has  been  given, 
an  image  must  be  set  before  the  eyes  of  those  who  are  called  on  to 
obey  it,  an  ideal  or  type  of  man  which  may  be  noble  and  amiable 
enough  to  raise  the  whole  race,  and  make  the  meanest  member  ot 
it  sacred  with  reflected  glory.'    This  is  what  Christ  did  for  us. 

These  three  points  will  help  to  elucidate  what  St.  Paul  means  by 
oyaffjy.  It  is  in  fact  the  correlative  in  the  moral  world  to  what  faith 
is  in  the  religious  life.  Like  faith  it  is  universal ;  like  faith  it  is 
a  principle  not  a  code;  like  faith  it  is  centred  in  the  Godhead. 
Hence  St  Paul,  as  St.  John  (1  John  iii.  23),  sums  up  Christianity 
in  Faith  and  Love,  which  are  finally,  united  in  that  Love  of  God, 
which  ii  the  end  and  root  of  both. 


THB  DAY  18  AT  HAinO. 

XIII.  11-14.  The  night  of  this  corrupt  agi  is  flying. 
The  Parousia  is  nearing.  Cast  off  your  evil  ways.  Gird 
yourselves  with  the  armour  of  light.  Take  Christ  into  your 
hearts.     Shun  sin  and  self-indulgence. 

11.  The  Apostle  adds  a  motive  for  the  Christian  standard  ot 
life,  the  nearness  of  our  final  salvation. 

Ral  TOOT©, '  and  that  too ' :  cp,  i  Cor.  vi.  6,  8 ;  i.ph.  it  8,  &c. :  it 


I?  8  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [XIII.  Il-IA 

resumes  the  series  of  exhortations  implied  in  the  previous  8ection« ; 
there  is  no  need  to  supply  any  special  words  wiih  it. 

Tof  Koip<5j' :  used  of  a  definite,  measured,  or  determined  time,  and 
so  almost  technically  of  the  period  before  the  second  coming  of 
Christ:  cf.  I  Cor.  vii.  2g  6  Kaipis  in/vcaraXftcW ;  Mark  i.  15;  and 

so  6  Kaioos  6  ivtaras  (Heb.  ix.  9). 

oTi  <3pa  r\hi\  K.T.X.  ^5^7  with  fyepdrjvtu.  The  time  of  trial  on  earth 
is  looked  upon  as  a  night  of  gloom,  to  be  followed  by  a  bright 
morning.  We  must  arouse  ourselves  from  slumber  and  prepare 
ourselves  for  the  light. 

yuv  ydp  eyyuTcpov  k.t.X.  '  For  our  completed  salvation,  no  longer 
that  hope  of  salvation  which  sustains  us  here,  is  appreciably  nearer 
for  us  than  when  we  first  accepted  in  faith  the  Messianic  message.' 
oTf  (TTKTTfvaafifv  refers  to  the  actual  moment  of  the  acceptance  of 
Christianity.  The  language  is  that  befitting  those  who  expect  the 
actual  coming  of  Christ  almost  immediately,  but  it  will  fit  the 
circumstances  of  any  Christian  for  whom  death  brings  the  day. 

In  ver.  11  the  original  vfidi  (N  A  BC  P,  Clem.-Alex.)  has  been  corrected 
for  the  sake  of  uniformity  into  v^aj  (K«  D  E  F  G  L,  &c.,  lioh.  Sah.).  In  ver.  1 3 
iy  fpitJi  Kal  (t]\ois  is  a  variant  of  B,  Sah.,  Clem.-Alex.  Amb.  In  ver.  14  B, 
and  Clem.-Alex.  read  riv  Xptcrir  l^aovv,  which  may  very  likely  be  the 
correct  reading. 

12.  irpoeKovJ/ei',  '  has  advanced  towards  dawn.*  Cf.  Luke  ii.  52 ; 
Gal.  i.  14 ;  Jos.  Bell.  Jud.  IV.  iv.  6  ;  Just.  Dial.  p.  277  d. 

The  contrast  of  xinvos,  vv^,  and  (r«t<5ror  with  ij/i/pa  and  <^ut  finds 
many  illustrations  in  Christian  and  in  all  religious  literature. 

diro6c5jx€0a.  The  works  of  darkness,  1.  e.  works  such  as  befit  the 
kingdom  of  darkness,  are  represented  as  being  cast  off  like  the 
uncomely  garments  of  the  night,  for  the  bright  armour  which 
befits  the  Christian  soldier  as  a  member  of  the  kingdom  of  light. 
This  metaphor  of  the  Christian  armour  is  a  favourite  one  with 
St.  Paul  (i  Thess.  v,  8;  a  Cor.  vi.  7;  Rom.  vi.  13;  and  especially 
Eph.  vi.  13  f.) ;  it  may  have  been  originally  suggested  by  the 
Jewish  conception  of  the  last  great  fight  against  the  armies  of 
Antichrist  (Dan.  xi;  Orac.  Sib.  iii.  663  f. ;  4  Ezra  xiii.  33;  Enoch 
xc.  16).  but  in  St.  Paul  the  conception  has  become  completely 
spiritualized. 

13.  iuay^r[^6vu>%  irepiiroT^awjitr.  The  metaphor  ittpinartiw  ol 
conduct  is  very  common  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  where  it  occurs 
thirty-three  times  (never  in  the  Past.  Epp.);  elsewhere  in  the 
N.T.  sixteen  times. 

KtdiJiois,  'rioting,'  'revelry'  (Gal.  v.  ti;  i  Pet  iv.  3).  ni&tf  the 
drunkenness  which  would  be  the  natural  result  and  accompaniment 
ftf  such  revelry. 

KoiTait  Kol  dacXyciait,  'unlawful  intercourse  and  wanton  acts. 

*Opa    bi    rqy  rafty*   mmjta^ttv  ftip  yip  rtt   iu6\m^    fuOvrnv   ii   Ko^Ta^^Ttu^ 


Xm.  18, 14.]  THE  DAY  IS  AT  HAND  379 

MMTof o/xcvw  it  AfftXyaivri,  rov  ouwv  rovrov  t§  it\ti<ritop§  wvpirdktwnt  tmi 
iupt6iCo^of'    Euthym.-Zig. 

14.  et'SuvcMrOc  tok  KupioK  *lT)<roui'  Xpi(rr6v.  Christ  is  put  On  first  in 
baptism  (vi.  3;  Gal.  iii.  27),  but  we  must  continually  renew  that 
life  with  which  we  have  been  clothed  (Eph.  iv.  24  ;  Col.  iii.  12). 

Tiis  aapK^s  with  rrpovoiop ;  the  word  is  thrown  forward  in  order  to 
emphasize  the  contrast  between  the  old  nature,  the  flesh  of  sin,  and 
the  new,  the  life  in  Christ 

On  this  passage  most  commentators  compare  St.  Aug.  Con/ess. 
viii.  I  a,  33  Arrtpui,  aperui  «t  legi  in  silent io  capilulum,  quo  pri- 
mum  coniecti  sunt  oculi  mei:  Non  in  conversationibus  et  ebrie- 
tatibus,  non  in  cubilibus  et  impudicitiis,  non  in  contentione  et 
aemulatione :  sed  induite  Dominum  lesum  Christum,  et  carnis 
providentiam  ne  feceritis  in  concupiscentiis.  Nee  ulira  volui 
legere,  ntc  opus  erat.  Siatim  quippe  cum  fine  huiusce  sententiae  quasi 
luct  secwrikUis  infusa  cardi  meo,  omnes  dubitationis  ttnebrat  di§u- 
gtruHt, 

Tht  tarty  Christian  belief  in  thi  nearness  of  th4 

Ttapovala, 

There  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  in  the  Apostolic  age  the 
prevailing  belief  was  that  the  Second  Coming  of  the  Lord  was  an 
event  to  be  expected  in  any  case  shortly  and  probably  in  the  life- 
time of  many  of  those  then  living;  it  is  also  probable  that  this 
belief  was  shared  by  the  Apostles  themselves.  For  example,  so 
strongly  did  such  views  prevail  among  the  Thessalonian  converts 
that  the  death  of  some  members  of  the  community  had  filled  them 
with  perplexity,  and  even  when  correcting  these  ofnnions  St.  Paul 
speaks  of '  we  that  are  alive,  that  are  left  unto  the  coming  of  our 
Lord ' ;  and  in  the  second  Epistle,  although  he  corrects  the 
erroneous  impression  which  still  prevailed  that  the  coming  was 
immediate  and  shows  that  other  events  must  precede  it,  he  still 
contemplates  it  as  at  hand.  Similar  passages  may  be  quoted  from 
all  or  most  of  the  Epistles,  although  there  are  others  that  suggest 
that  it  is  by  his  own  death,  not  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  that 
St.  Paul  expects  to  attain  the  full  life  in  Christ  to  which  he  looked 
forward  (i  Cor.  vii.  29-31;  Rom.  xiii.  ii,  12;  Phil.  iv.  5;  and 
on  the  other  side  2  Cor.  v.  i-io;  Phil.  i.  23;  iii.  11,  20,  ai ;  see 
Jowett,  Thessalonians,  &c.,  i.  p.  105,  who  quotes  both  classes  of 
passages  without  distinguishing  them). 

How  far  was  this  derived  from  our  Lord's  own  teaching? 
There  is,  it  is  true,  very  clear  teaching  on  the  reality  and  the 
suddenness  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  very  definite  exhortation 
to  all  Christians  to  live  as  expecting  that  coming.  This  teaching 
is  couched  largely  in  the  current  language  of  Apocalyptic  literature 


28o  EPIS11.E  TO  THE  ROMANS      (XIII.  11-14 

which  was  often  hardly  intended  to  be  taken  literally  even  bj 
Jewish  writers;  moieover  it  is  certainly  mingled  with  teaching 
which  was  intended  to  refer  to  what  was  a  real  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  power,  and  very  definitely  a  '  coming  of  the  Lord '  in  the 
O.  T.  sense  of  the  term,  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  All  this 
language  again  is  reported  to  us  by  those  who  took  it  in  a  literal 
sense.  The  expressions  of  our  Lord  quoted  as  prophetic  of  His 
speedy  return  are  all  to  a  certain  extent  ambiguous ;  for  example, 
'  This  generation  shall  not  pass  away  until  all  these  things  be  ful- 
filled,'or  again '  There  be  some  of  them  here  who  shall  not  taste  of 
death  until  they  see  the  Son  of  God  coming  with  power.'  On  the 
other  side  there  is  a  very  distinct  tradition  preserved  in  documents 
of  different  classes  recording  that  when  our  Lord  was  asked  de- 
finitely on  such  matters  His  answers  were  ambiguous.  Acts  i.  7 
'  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  times  and  seasons,  which  the  Father 
hath  set  within  His  own  authority.'  John  xxi.  23  '  This  saying 
therefore  went  forth  among  the  brethren,  that  that  disciple  should 
not  die :  yet  Jesus  said  not  unto  him,  that  he  should  not  die ;  but, 
If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ?'  Moreover 
he  afiBrmed  that  He  Himself  was  ignorant  of  the  date  Mark  xiii.  32 ; 
Matt.  xxiv.  36  '  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  one,  not 
even  the  angels  of  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only.' 

In  the  face  of  these  passages  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that 
this  ignorance  of  the  Early  Cimrch  was  permitted  and  that  with 
^  purpose.  If  so,  we  may  be  allowed  to  speculate  as  to  the  service 
it  was  intended  to  fulfil.  ~~^ 

In  the  first  place,  this  belief  in  the  nearness  of  the  second  coming 
quickened  the  religious  and  moral  earnestness  of  the  early  Christian. 
Believing  as  intently  as  he  did  '  that  the  fashion  of  this  world  passeth 
away,'  he  '  set  his  affection  on  things  above ' ;  he  lived  in  the  world 
and  yet  not  of  the  world.  The  constant  looking  forward  to  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  produced  a  state  of  intense  spiritual  seal  which 
braced  the  Church  for  its  earliest  and  hardest  task. 

And  secondly,  it  has  been  pointed  out  very  ably  how  much  the 
elasticity  and  mobility  of  Christianity  were  preserved  by  the  fact  thai 
the  Apostles  never  realized  that  they  were  building  up  a  Church 
which  was  to  last  through  the  ages.  It  became  the  fashion  of 
a  later  age  to  ascribe  to  the  Apostles  a  series  of  ordinances  and 
constitutions.  Any  such  theory  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  real 
spirit  of  their  time.  They  never  wrote  or  legislated  except  so  far 
as  existing  needs  demanded.  They  founded  such  institutions  as 
were  clearly  required  by  some  immediate  want,  or  were  part  of  our 
Lord's  teaching.  But  they  never  administered  or  planned  with 
a  view  to  the  remote  future.  Their  writings  were  occasional, 
suggested  by  some  pressing  difficulty;  but  they  thus  incidentally 
laid  down  great  broad  principles  which  became  the  guiding  principlf^ 


XIII.  U~14.]  THE  DAY  IS  AT  HAND  38] 

of  the  Church.  The  Church  therefore  is  governed  by  case  law,  not 
by  code  law :  by  broad  principles,  not  by  minute  regulations.  It 
may  seem  a  paradox,  but  yet  it  is  profoundly  true,  that  the  Church 
is  adapted  to  the  needs  of  every  age,  just  because  the  original 
preachers  of  Christianity  never  attempted  to  adapt  it  to  the  needs 
of  any  period  but  their  own. 

Thi  relation  of  Chaps.  XII-XIV  to  the  Gospels. 

There  is  a  very  marked  resemblance  between  the  moral  teaching 
of  St  Paul  contained  in  the  concluding  section  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  and  our  Lord's  own  words ;  a  resemblance  which,  in  some 
cases,  extends  even  to  language. 

Rom.  di.  14.  Matt  t.  44. 

tikoy^t,  Mtd  /t^  marapaaOt,  «rfx«^^c  ^^P  "^^  SiuKovran'  ifias, 

Rom.  xiil.  7.  Matt.  zxii.  ai. 

A969cfn  tSot  nU  i^tiKit  «.rJL  iwSioT*  oir  rd  Kataapot  Kaierapi, 

Mol  rd  rod  Btov  r^  &($. 

Rom.  siii.  9.  Matt.  xxii.  39,  40. 

mat  rf  Tit  Mpa  irroK^,  h  roirp  itvripa  ii  o/«oia  avrij,  'Ayav^aeit 

r^    \6y^  dra/vc^aXatovreu,    ir    r^  riy  ■KXrjalov  aov  dn  aeavrSv.  iv  ravrait 

'A-farfiotu    riif    wXriaiov    9tm    it  Tofs  Svalv  irroXait  iKos  6  ydfios  xpi' 

lavT^r  ftartu  itai  ol  vpo<prJT<u. 

To  these  verbal  resemblances  must  be  added  remarkable  identity 
of  teaching  in  these  successive  chapters.  Everything  that  is  said 
about  revenge,  or  about  injuring  others,  is  exactly  identical  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  our  duty  towards  rulers  exactly 
reproduces  the  lesson  given  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel;  the  words 
concerning  the  relation  of '  love '  to  '  law '  might  be  an  extract  from 
the  Gospel :  the  two  main  lines  of  argument  in  ch.  xiv,  the  absolute 
indifference  of  all  external  practices,  and  the  supreme  importance 
of  not  giving  a  cause  of  offence  to  any  one  are  both  directly  derived 
from  the  teaching  of  Jesus  (Matt,  xviii.  6,  7,  xv.  11-20).  This 
resemblance  is  brought  out  very  well  by  a  recent  writer  (Knowling, 
Witness  of  the  Epistle,  p.  31a) :  '  Indeed  it  is  not  too  much  to  add 
that  the  Apostle's  description  of  the  kingdom  of  God  (Rom.  xiv.  1 7) 
reads  like  a  brief  summary  of  its  description  in  the  same  Sermon 
on  the  Mount ;  the  righteousness,  peace,  and  joy,  which  formed  the 
contents  of  the  kingdom  in  the  Apostle's  conception  are  found  side 
by  side  in  the  Saviour's  Beatitudes ;  nor  can  we  fail  to  notice  how 
both  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  contrast  the  anxious  care  for  meat 
and  drink  with  seeking  in  the  first  place  for  the  kingdom  of  God 
and  His  righteousness.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  Paul's 
fundamental  idea  of  righteousness  may  be  said  to  be  rooted  in  the 
teaching  of  Jesus ' 


38ft  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [ZII-XIV 

It  Ji  well  known  that  there  are  definite  references  by  St.  Paul  to 
the  words  of  our  Lord :  so  i  Thes.  iv.  15  s=  Matt.  xxiv.  31 ;  i  Cor. 
vii.  10  =  Mark  x.  9 ;  i  Cor.  ix.  14  s  Luke  x.  7 ;  as  also  in  the  case 
of  the  institution  of  the  Last  Supper,  i  Cor.  xi.  24.  Reminiscences 
also  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  may  be  found  in  other  Epistles, 
e.  g.  James  iv.  9  =  Matt.  v.  4  ;  James  v.  1 2  =  Matt.  v.  33 ;  i  Pet 
iii.  9  =:  Matt.  v.  39  ;  i  Pet.  iv.  14  =  Matt.  v.  11,  la,  and  elsewhere. 
The  resemblances  are  not  in  any  case  sufficient  either  to  prove 
the  use  of  any  document  which  we  possess  in  its  present  form,  or 
to  prove  the  use  of  a  different  document  (see  below) ;  but  they  do 
show  that  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  was  based  on  some  common 
source,  which  was  identical  boih  in  substance  and  spirit  with  those 
words  of  our  Lord  contained  in  the  Gospels. 

They  suggest  further  that  even  in  cases  where  we  have  no  direct 
evidence  that  Apostolic  teaching  is  based  on  the  Gospel  narrative 
it  does  not  follow  that  oiu"  Lord  Himself  did  not  originate  it. 
For  Christianity  is  older  than  any  of  its  records.  The  books 
of  the  N.  T.  reflect,  they  did  not  originate,  the  teaching  of  early 
Christianity.  Moreover,  our  Lord  originated  principles.  It  was 
these  principles  which  inspired  His  followers ;  some  of  the  words 
which  are  the  product  of  and  which  taught  those  principles  are 
preserved,  some  are  not ;  but  the  result  of  them  is  contained  in  the 
words  of  the  Apostles,  which  worked  out  in  practical  life  the 
principles  they  had  learnt  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  Christ 

A  mndi  more  exact  and  definite  conclosion  if  supported  with  Tery  great 
industry  by  Alfred  Resch  in  a  teries  of  investigations,  the  first  of  which  ia 
Agrapha,  Ausstrcanonischs  Evangeliin-fragmtntt  in  Textt  und  UtUtT' 
nuhun^tn,  v.  4.  He  argues  (pp.  28,  39)  that  the  acquaintance  shown  by 
St.  Paul  with  the  words  and  teaching  of  Jesus  implies  the  use  of  an  Urcanon- 
ische  QuelUnschrift,  which  was  also  used  by  St.  Mark,  as  well  as  the  other 
N.T.  writers.  It  would  be  of  course  beside  our  purpose  to  examine  this  theory, 
but  so  far  as  it  concerns  the  passages  we  are  considering  it  may  be  noticed : 
(i)  That  so  far  as  they  go  there  would  be  no  reason  why  all  St.  Paul's  teach- 
ing should  not  have  been  derived  from  our  present  Gospels.  He  does  not 
profess  to  be  quoting,  and  the  verbal  reminiscences  might  quite  well  represent 
the  documents  we  possess.  (3)  That  it  is  equally  impossible  to  argue  against 
the  use  of  different  Gospel*.  The  only  legitimate  conclusion  is  that  there 
must  have  been  a  common  teaching  of  Jesus  behind  the  Apostle's  words 
which  was  identical  in  spirit  and  substantially  in  words  with  that  contained 
in  our  Synoptic  Gospels.  Some  stress  is  laid  by  Resch  (pp.  245,  303  flf.) 
on  passages  which  are  identical  in  Romans  and  i  Peter.  So  Rom.  xii.  1 7  °> 
I  Pet.  iii.  9;  Rom.  xiii.  i,  3  «  i  Pet.  ii.  13,  14.  The  resemblance  ia  un- 
doubted, but  a  far  more  probable  explanation  is  that  i  Peter  is  directly 
indebted  to  the  Romans  (see  Introduction  §  8).  There  is  no  reason  to  cite 
these  as  '  Words  of  the  Lord  ' ;  yet  it  is  very  probable  that  much  more  of  the 
eommon  teaching  and  even  phraseology  of  the  early  Church  than  w«  an 
accsatomed  to  imagine  goes  back  to  the  teaching  of  Jeaa» 


JOV.  l-XV.  7.]       ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  383 


Oir  FOBBEABAKOE  TOWABDS  THOSE  WHO  ABE 
SCBUFUIiOUS. 

XIV.  1 — XV.  18.  Receive  a  scrupulous  Christian  cordially. 
Do  not  be  continually  condemning  him.  Some  of  you  have 
grasped  the  full  meaning  of  Christian  faith,  others  whose 
conscience  is  too  tender  lay  undue  stress  on  particular  prac- 
tices, on  rules  as  to  food  or  the  observance  of  certain  days. 
Do  not  you  whose  faith  is  more  robust  despise  such  scruples, 
nor  should  they  be  censorious  (w.  1-5). 

Every  one  should  make  up  his  own  mind.  These  things 
are  indifferent  in  themselves.  Only  whatever  a  man  does  he 
must  look  to  Christ.  In  life  and  death  we  are  all  His,  whose 
death  and  resurrection  have  made  him  Lord  of  all.  To 
Him  as  to  no  one  else  shall  we  be  called  upon  to  give  account 
(w.  6-12). 

We  must  avoid  censoriousness.  But  equally  must  we 
avoid  placing  obstacles  before  a  fellow- Christian.  I  believe 
firmly  that  nothing  is  harmful  in  itself,  but  it  becomes  so  to 
the  person  who  considers  it  harmful.  The  obligation  of  love 
and  charity  is  paramount.  Meats  are  secondary  things. 
Let  us  have  an  eye  to  peace  and  mutual  help.  It  is  not 
worth  while  for  the  sake  of  a  little  meat  to  undo  God's 
work  in  a  brother  s  soul.  Far  better  abstain  from  flesh  and 
wine  altogether  (w.  13-ai). 

Keep  the  robuster  faith  with  which  you  are  blest  to 
yourself  and  God.  To  hesitate  and  then  eat  is  to  incur 
guilt ;  for  it  is  not  prompted  by  strong  faith  (w.  22,  23). 

This  rule  of  forbearance  applies  to  all  classes  of  the  com- 
munity. The  strong  should  bear  the  scruples  of  the  weak. 
We  should  not  seek  our  own  good,  but  that  of  others  ;  following 
the  example  of  Christ  as  expounded  to  us  in  the  Scriptures ; 
those  Scriptures  which  were  written  for  our  encouragement 
and  consolation.  May  God,  from  whom  this  encouragement 
(onus,  grant  you  all — weak  and  strong,  Jew  and  Gentile — to 
h*  of  one  mind,  uniting  in  the  praise  of  God  (xv.  1-7). 


^84  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XIV.  1. 

For  Christ  has  received  you  all  alike.  To  both  yew  and 
Gentile  He  has  a  special  mission.  To  the  Jews  to  exhibit 
God's  veracity,  to  the  Gentiles  to  reveal  His  mercy ;  that 
Gentile  might  unite  with  Jew,  as  Psalmist  and  Prophet 
foretold,  in  hymns  of  praise  to  the  glory  of  God.  May  God 
the  giver  of  hope  send  it  richly  upon  you  (w.  8-13). 

XTV.  1 — XV.  13.  The  Apostle  now  passes  on  to  a  further  point ; 
the  proper  attitude  to  adopt  towards  matters  in  themselves  indifferent, 
but  concerning  which  some  members  of  the  community  might  have 
scruples.  The  subject  is  one  which  naturally  connects  itself  with 
what  we  have  seen  to  be  the  leading  thought  which  underlies  these 
concluding  chapters,  and  in  fact  the  whole  Epistle,  namely,  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  and  may  have  been  immediately 
suggested  by  the  words  just  preceding :  St.  Paul  has  been  con- 
demning excessive  indulgence;  he  now  passes  to  the  opposite 
extreme,  excessive  scrupulousness,  which  he  deals  with  in  a  very 
different  way.  As  Augustine  points  out,  he  condemns  and  instructs 
more  openly  the  *  strong '  who  can  bear  it,  while  indirectly  showing 
the  error  of  the  '  weak.'  The  arguments  throughout  are,  as  we  shall 
see,  perfectly  general,  and  the  principles  applied  those  characteristic 
of  the  moral  teaching  of  the  Epistle — the  freedom  of  Christian  faith, 
the  comprehensiveness  of  Christian  charity  and  that  duty  of  peace 
and  unity  on  which  St  Paul  never  wearies  of  insisting. 

Tertullian  {Adv.  Mart.  r.  15)  refers  to  ver.  10,  tnd  Origen  {Cemm.  Im 
Rom.  X.  43,  Lomni.  vii.  p.  453)  to  vtt.  %%.  Of  Marcicn's  ose  of  the  rest  of  ths 
chapter  we  know  nothing.    On  chapa.  xv,  xri,  see  Introduction,  §  9. 

1.  thv  %\  dafieKoon-a  t^  moTci:  cf.  Rom.  iv.  19;  I  Cor.  viii.  7,  9, 
10,  II  ;  ix.  2%.  'Weakness  in  faith,'  means  an  inadequate  grasp 
of  the  great  principle  of  salvation  by  faith  in  Christ;  the  conse- 
quence of  which  will  be  an  anxious  desire  to  make  tiiis  salvation 
more  certain  by  the  scrupulous  fulfilment  of  formal  rules. 

irpoaXafi^dt'caOc,  'receive  into  full  Christian  intercourse  and 
fellowship.'    The  word  is  used  (i)  of  God  receiving  or  helping 

man :   Ps.  XXVi  (xxvii)  10  a  nati\p  (utv  ml  ^  Mfrjp  fum  iyKOTfkurov  fUy 

6  8«  Kvpios  irpodikdHtTo  fit:    so  in  ver.   3  below  and  in  Clem. 

Rom.  xlix.  6  «V  dydirp  npo(Tf\a0{T9  iffMt  6  fieaironys.  But  (a)  it  is 
also  used  of  men  receivmg  others  into  fellowship  or  companion- 
ship :  3  Mace.  viii.  I  tovs  fttpevTfK&ras  iv  r^  'lovbeuafi^  npoaXaffdfitvot 
avvriyayov  (Is  i^aKia-^iXiovs.  These  two  uses  are  combined  in  xv.  7 
'  All  whom  Christ  has  willed  to  receive  into  the  Christian  community, 
whether  they  be  Jews  or  Greeks,  circumcised  or  uncircumcised, 
every  Christian  ought  to  be  willing  to  receive  as  brothers.* 

(if)  els  SiaKpiaeis  SiaXoyiofiuK,  'but  not  to  pass  judgement! 
on  their  thoughts.'     Receive  them  as  members  of  the  QiristiaB 


znr.  1-4.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  385 

community,  but  do  not  let  them  find  that  they  have  been  merely 
received  into  a  society  in  which  their  somewhat  too  scrupulous 
thoughts  are  perpetually  being  condemned.  dioKpivtis,  from  diaKpivm 
to  'judge,'  'decide/  'distinguish/  means  the  expression  of  judge- 
ments or  opinions,  as  Heb.  v.  14  'judgement  of  good  or  evil/ 
I  Cor.  xii.  lo  'judgement  or  discernment  of  spirits.'  diaXoyiarnap 
means  '  thoughts,'  often,  but  not  necessarily,  with  the  idea  of  doubt, 
hesitation  (Luke  xxiv.  38),  disputes  (Phil.  ii.  14;  i  Tim.  ii.  8),  or 
generally  of  perverse  self-willed  speculations.  The  above  interpre- 
tation of  duiKpiaeit  is  that  of  most  commentators  (Mey.-W.  Oltr.  Va.) 
and  is  most  in  accordance  with  usage.  An  equally  good  sense 
could  be  gained  by  translating  (with  Lips.)  'not  so  as  to  raise 
doubts  in  his  mind/  or  (with  Gif.)  '  not  unto  discussions  of  doubts  * ; 
but  neither  interpretation  can  be  so  well  supported. 

2.  The  Apostle  proceeds  to  describe  the  two  classes  to  which 
he  is  referring,  and  then  (ver.  3)  he  gives  his  commands  to  both 
sides. 

St  |tjv  . . .  A  82  ivHvAv.  With  the  variation  in  constmction  cf.  i  Cor. 
siL  8-10 ;  Mark  iv.  4 ;  Lake  viii.  5.  The  second  6  is  not  for  it,  hot  is  to  be 
taken  with  da$(v&y. 

vurrcJci, '  hath  faith  to  eat  all  things ' ;  his  faith,  i.  e.  his  grasp  and 
hold  of  the  Christian  spirit,  is  so  strong  that  he  recognizes  how 
indifferent  all  such  matters  in  themselves  really  are. 

Xdxai'a  4a6ici,  '  abstains  from  all  flesh  meat  and  eats  only 
vegetables.'  Most  commentators  have  assumed  that  St.  Paul  is 
describing  the  practice  of  some  definite  party  in  the  Roman 
community  and  have  discussed,  with  great  divergence  of  opinion, 
the  motive  of  such  a  practice.  But  St.  Paul  is  writing  quite 
generally,  and  is  merely  selecting  a  typical  instance  to  balance  the 
first.  He  takes,  on  the  one  side,  the  man  of  thoroughly  strong 
faith,  who  has  grasped  the  full  meaning  of  his  Christianity ;  and  on 
the  other  side,  one  who  is,  as  would  generally  be  admitted,  over- 
scrupulous, and  therefore  is  suitable  as  the  type  of  any  variety  of 
scrupulousness  in  food  which  might  occur.  To  both  these  classes 
he  gives  the  command  of  forbearance,  and  what  he  says  to  them 
will  apply  to  other  less  extreme  cases  (see  the  Discussion  on  p.  399). 

8.  6  iadlm  .  .  .  6  82  fif|  cadiW.  St.  Paul  uses  these  expressions 
to  express  briefly  the  two  classes  with  which  he  is  dealing  (see  ver.  6\. 
Pride  and  contempt  would  be  the  natural  failing  of  the  one ;  a  spint 
of  censoriousness  of  the  other. 

6  eefts  Y^P  ""TaK  irpoaeXcipeTO.  See  ver.  i.  God  through  Christ 
has  admitted  men  into  His  Church  without  imposing  on  them 
minute  and  formal  observances ;  they  are  not  therefore  to  be 
criticized  or  condemned  for  neglecting  practices  which  God  has 
not  required. 

4.  orA  Tis  ct;  St.  Paul  is  still  rebuking  the  'weak.'     The  man 


386  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [ZTV.  4,  & 

whom  he  is  condemning  is  not  a  household  slave,  bat  the  servant  of 

God ;  to  God  therefore  he  is  responsible. 

Tw  iSi'w  Kupi^.  Dat.  of  reference:  cf.  w.  5-8.  'It  is  to  his 
own  master  that  he  is  responsible.'  He  it  is  to  whom  he  must  show 
whether  he  has  used  or  misused  his  freedom,  whether  he  has  had 
the  strength  to  fulfil  his  work  or  whether  he  has  failed,  mirrci 
(xi.  II,  2 a)  of  moral  failure;  <m^iiei  (i  Cor.  xvi.  13;  Phil.  L  27)  of 
moral  stability.     In  i  Cor.  x.  is  the  two  are  contrasted,  &(m  i 

ioKuv  icnavai  ^Xtnira  fif)  itiaij. 

oraGriaeToi  8rf:  cf.  Matt.  xii.  25.  In  spite  of  your  censoriousness 
he  will  be  held  straight,  for  the  same  Lord  who  called  him  on 
conditions  of  freedom  to  His  kingdom  is  mighty  to  hold  him 
upright.  The  Lord  will  give  grace  and  strength  to  those  whom  He 
has  called. 

For   Zvrar ft  (KA6CDFG),  which  is  an  tmasul  word,  later  MSS. 

substituted  5wot<5»  (P,  Bas.  Chryj.),  or  iwarbt  .  .  .  iarir  (T  R  with  L 
and  later  MSS.).  For  6  Kvpwt  (N  A  B  C  P.  Sah.  Boh.,  &c)  6  BtSt  was  iiw 
troduced  from  vcr.  3  (DEFGL,  See,  Vu'.g.,  Orig.-lat  Baa.  Chzyt.,  &c), 
perhaps  because  of  the  confusioa  with  r^  Kvpiqf  above. 

5.  The  Apostle  turns  to  another  instance  of  similar  scrupulous- 
ness,— the  superstitious  observance  of  days.  In  Galatia  he  has 
already  had  to  rebuke  this  strongly ;  later  he  condemns  the  Colos- 
sians  for  the  same  reason.  Gal.  iv.  10,  11  'Ye  observe  days,  and 
months,  and  seasons,  and  years.  I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  by  any 
means  I  have  bestowed  labour  upon  you  in  vain.'  Col.  ii.  16,  17 
'  Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect 
of  a  feast  day  or  a  new  moon  or  a  sabbath  day:  which  are 
a  shadow  of  the  things  to  come ;  but  the  body  is  Christ's.'  St.  Paul 
does  not  in  the  Romans  condemn  any  one  for  adherence  to  this 
practice,  but  simply  considers  the  principles  which  underlie  the 
question,  as  illustrating  (hence  ydp)  the  general  discussion  of  the 
chapter.  The  fundamental  principle  is  that  such  things  are  in 
themselves  indifferent,  but  that  each  person  must  be  fully  assured 
in  his  own  conscience  that  he  is  doing  right. 

Various  commentators  have  discussed  the  relation  of  these  direc- 
tions to  Ecclesiastical  ordinances,  and  have  attempted  to  make 
a  distinction  between  the  Jewish  rites  which  are  condemned  and 
Christian  rites  which  are  enjoined.  (So  Jerome,  Contra  lovinian. 
iL  1 6,  quoted  by  Liddon  ad  loc. :  non  inter  ieiunia  et  saluriiatem 
aequalia  mente  dispensat ;  sed  contra  tos  loquitur,  qui  in  Christum 
tredentes,  adhuc  iudaizabani.)  No  such  distinction  is  possible.  The 
Apostle  is  dealing  with  principles,  not  with  special  rites,  and  he 
bys  down  the  principle  that  these  things  in  themselves  are  indif- 
ferent; while  the  whole  tenor  of  his  argument  is  against  scrupu- 
lousness in  any  form.  So  these  same  principles  would  apply 
equally  to  the  scrupulous  observance  of  Elcclesiastical  rules,  whethef 


XIV.  6,  e.J  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  387 

as  in  some  places  of  Sunday,  or  as  in  others  of  Saints '  days  of 
Fast  days.  Such  observances  if  undertaken  in  a  scrupulous 
spirit  are  opposed  to  the  very  essence  of  Christian  freedom. 
When  once  this  principle  has  been  grasped  a  loyal  free  adhesion 
to  the  rules  of  the  Church  becomes  possible.  The  Jew  and 
the  scrupulous  Christian  kept  their  rules  of  days  and  seasons, 
because  they  believed  that  their  salvation  depended  on  an  exact 
adherence  to  formal  ordinances.  The  Christian  who  has  grasped 
the  freedom  of  the  Gospel  recognizes  the  indifference  in  themselves 
of  all  such  ordinances ;  but  he  voluntarily  submits  to  the  rules  of 
his  Church  out  of  respect  for  its  authority,  and  he  recognizes  the 
value  of  an  external  discipline.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
which  representing  an  early  system  of  Christian  discipline,  seem  to 
recognize  these  principles,  for  they  strongly  condemn  abstinence 
from  food  if  influenced  by  any  feeling  of  abhorrence  from  it, 
although  not  if  undertaken  for  the  purpose  of  discipline. 

Tisch.  (ed.  8)  reads  here  tt  fiiy  y&p  with  N  A  C  P,  Vulg.  Boh.  (which  he 
^otei  incorrectly  on  the  other  side),  Bas.  Ambrstr.  Jo.-Damasc.  The  yap  is 
omitted  by  N«  B  D  E  F  G,  Syrr.,  Orig.-lat.  Chrys.  Thdrt.  TR.  RV.  and  inserted 
between  brackets  by  WH.  Lachmann.  The  insertion  is  probably  right; 
the  balance  of  external  evidence  being  in  its  favour,  for  B  here  is  clearly 
Western  in  character. 

KpiKCt,  'estimates/  'approves  of  :  Plat.  Phil.  p.  57  E  is  quoted, 
vapd, '  passing  by '  and  so  '  in  preference  to.' 

irXt)po(t>opeiad(i).  The  difference  between  the  Christian  and  the 
Jew  or  the  heathen,  between  the  man  whose  rule  is  one  of  faith  and 
the  man  subject  to  law,  is,  that  while  for  the  latter  there  are  definite 
and  often  minute  regulations  he  must  follow,  for  the  former  the 
only  laws  are  great  and  broad  principles.  He  has  the  guidance  of 
the  Spirit ;  he  must  do  what  his  vois,  his  highest  intellectual  faculty, 
tells  him  to  be  right.     On  the  word  ■nXr^po^opdcrda  see  on  iv.  21 

and  cf.  Clem.  Rom.  xlii  Tr^rjpocpopr/dfVTts  6ia  t^s  dvaa-Tda-tios. 

6.  The  reason  for  indifference  in  these  matters  is  that  both 
alike,  both  the  man  who  has  grasped  the  Christian  principle  and 
the  man  who  is  scrupulous,  are  aiming  at  the  one  essential  thing, 
to  render  service  to  God,  to  live  as  men  who  are  to  give  account 
to  Him. 

6  4>pot'fli' :  '  esteem,' '  estimate,' '  observe. '  Kupiw,  emphatic,  is  Dat. 
of  reference  as  above,  ver.  4. 

6  eaOiwK  ...  6  (i^  iaQimv:  see  ver.  3.  Both  alike  make  their 
meal  an  occasion  of  solemn  thanksgiving  to  God,  and  it  is  that 
which  consecrates  the  feast.  Is  there  any  reference  in  coxapiaxei  to 
ibe  Christian  tixapiarlai 

After  Kvp(>  (pporu  the  TR.  with  later  anthorities  (LP  &c.,  Syrr.,  Bas. 
Chrys.  Thdrt.)  add  ttai  6  /i^  <ppova>v  Tyv  ^fiipav  Kvpiqi  ov  <ppov(l,  a  gloss 
vhich  seemed  necessary  for  completing  the  sentence  on  the  analogy  of  the 

c  c  a 


3^8  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [ZIV.  0-9 

last  half  of  the  Terse.    The  addition  of  this  claoae  eanacd  the  ominioa  ol 

Kai  before  6  kirOiajv  (TR.  with  »ome  minnicnle*).  That  the  wordi  /«iM  ^ 
<PpovSfv  were  not  part»  of  the  original  text  omitted  by  homoeotelenton  ia 
shown  by  the  fact  that  many  authorities  which  insert  them  still  preserve  the 
superfluous  icai  (Syrr.,  Bas.  Chrys.  Thdrt.  and  many  minoscoles).  Varioni 
instances  of  homoeotelenton  occur,  at  might  be  expected,  in  these  rerses,  but 
they  are  in  all  cases  confined  to  a  single  or  very  slight  authority.  L  omits  «al 
6  nf)  iaeiuv  .  .  .  *ix.  T^  t*^ :  66  omits  i^fUpay  to  i^fiifof ;  minmsc.  3  omit 
iaBiti  to  l<r#(«i. 

7-lS.  St.  Paul  proceeds  to  develop  more  fully,  and  as  a  general 
rule  of  life,  the  thought  suggested  in  ver.  6.  To  God  we  are 
responsible  whether  we  live  or  die ;  before  His  judgement-seat  we 
shall  appear;  therefore  we  must  live  as  men  who  are  to  give 
account  of  our  lives  to  Him  and  not  to  one  another. 

7.  ouSeis  Y&p  .  .  .  dvo6cY](ntci.  In  life  and  in  death  we  are  not 
isolated,  or  solitary,  or  responsible  only  to  ourselves.  It  is  not  by 
our  own  act  we  were  created,  nor  is  our  death  a  matter  that  con- 
cerns us  alone. 

8.  Tw  Kupiu :  '  but  it  is  to  Christ,  as  men  living  in  Christ's  sight 
and  answerable  to  Him,  that  we  must  live;  in  Christ's  sight  we 
shall  die.  Death  does  not  free  us  from  our  obligations,  whether  we 
live  or  die  we  are  the  Lord's.'  Wetstein  compares  Pirqt  Aboth,  iv. 
32  '  Let  not  thine  imagination  assure  thee  that  the  grave  is  an 
asylum;  for  perforce  thou  wast  framed,  and  perforce  thou  wast 
born,  and  perforce  thou  livest,  and  perforce  thou  diest,  and  perforce 
thou  art  about  to  give  account  and  reckoning  before  the  King  of 
the  kings  of  kings,  the  Holy  One,  blessed  is  He.' 

It  may  be  noticed  that  in  these  verses  St.  Pan!  describes  the  ChiistiaB  lift 
from  a  point  of  view  other  than  that  which  he  had  adopted  in  chap.  viii. 
There  it  was  the  higher  aspects  of  that  life  as  lived  in  onion  with  Christ, 
here  it  is  the  life  lived  as  in  His  sight  and  responsible  to  Him. 

9.  The  reason  for  this  relation  of  all  men  to  Christ  as  servants 
to  their  master  is  that  by  His  death  and  resurrection  Christ  has 
established  His  Divine  Lordship  over  all  alike,  both  dead  and 
living.     Responsibility  to  Him  therefore  no  one  can  ever  escape. 

CIS  TouTo  is  explained  by  Xva  Kvpinnrji. 

dir^daKc  xal  l'i(\irf.¥  must  refer  to  Christ's  death  and  resurrection. 
tinfTtv  cannot  refer  to  the  life  of  Christ  on  earth,  (i)  because  of  the 
order  of  words  which  St.  Paul  has  purposely  and  deliberately 
varied  from  the  order  fw/xfr  km  cmoBvrjtTKttfifp  of  the  previous  verses ; 
(2)  because  the  Lordship  of  Christ  is  in  the  theology  of  St.  Paul 
always  connected  with  His  resurrection,  not  His  life,  which  was 
a  n-nod  of  humiliation  (Rom.  viii.  34;  a  Cor.  iv.  10,  11);  {3) 
because  of  the  tense ;  the  aorist  t^rfirttr  could  be  used  of  a  single 
definite  act  which  was  the  beginning  of  a  new  life,  it  could  not  be 
used  of  the  continuous  life  on  earth. 

respwr  koi  IwKTMr.     The  inversion  of  the  osual  order  is  owing  ta 


ZIV.  0-12.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  389 

the  order  of  words  in  the  previous  part  of  the  sentence,  miO.  m) 
7C>7<''>     For  the  Kvpt6rris  of  Christ  {'va  mpitiag)  see  Phil.  ii.  9,  11. 

For  XfiarSt  the  TR.  with  later  MSS.,  Syrr.,  Iren.-lat.  reads  itai  Xpiarit. 
A'wiewtv  Koi.  (Cv^ty,  the  older  and  most  difficult  reading  (K  A  B  C,  Boh.,  Ann. 
Aeth.  Orig.-lat.  Chrya.  i/a)  has  been  explained  in  various  ways ;  by  avid.  Koi 
iifioni  F  G,  Vnlg.  Grig,  and  other  Fathers ;  by  dviO.  Kal  dviar.  xal  wi^rjafp 
TR.  with  mitmte.  (perhaps  conflate^ ;  by  avle.  Kal  iviar.  itdt  iCtjatry  LP. 
Bee.,  HarkL  and  some  Fathera :  by  iitia.  mal  dwi$.  mal  ofitrr.  DE.  Ireo. 

10.  St  Paul  applies  the  argument  pointedly  to  the  questions  he 
is  discussing.  We  are  responsible  to  Christ;  we  shall  appear 
before  Him :  there  is  no  place  for  uncharitable  judgements  or 
censorious  ezclusiveness  between  man  and  man. 

•d  U  Tt  spirCit  refers  to  i  ^^  faBiav,  {|  xal  v6  to  i  tardlcav. 

vopoonio'tfficSa  t^  ^Vifiart  tow  6eou.  Cf.  Acts  xxvii.  24  JLalvofA 
9*  d«t  tra/KKTr^vou.  For  |3^/mi,  in  the  sense  of  a  judge's  official  seat, 
see  Matt.  zxviL  19;  Jo.  zix.  13,  &c.  God  is  here  mentioned  as 
Judge  because  (see  ii.  16)  He  judges  the  world  through  Christ. 

In  fl  Cor.  ¥.10  the  expression  is  rovr  yap  iravrat  fipas  (paytpad^vai  JWt 
tpnpooBtp  rov  fitjfiaros  rov  Xpiarov.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  follow 
Liddon  in  taking  Qtov  of  Christ  in  his  Divine  nature ;  that  would 
be  contrary  to  all  Pauline  usage :  but  it  is  important  to  notice  how 
easily  St.  Paul  passes  from  Xpiards  to  e(6s.  The  Father  and  the 
Son  were  in  his  mind  so  united  in  function  that  They  may  often 
be  interchanged.  God,  or  Christ,  or  God  through  Christ,  will 
judge  the  world.  Our  life  is  in  God,  or  in  Christ,  or  with  Christ 
in  God.  The  union  of  man  with  God  depends  upon  the  intimate 
nnion  of  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

•cov  mtut  be  accepted  as  against  ILpiarov  on  decisive  authority.  The 
latter  reading  arose  from  a  desire  to  assimilate  the  expression  to  2  Cor.  y.  10. 

11.  St  Paul  supports  his  statement  of  the  universal  character  of 
God's  judgement  by  quoting  Is.  xlv.  23  (freely  ace.  to  the  LXX). 
In  the  O.  T.  the  words  describe  the  expectation  of  the  universal 
character  of  Messianic  rule,  and  the  Apostle  sees  their  complete 
fulfilment  at  the  final  judgement. 

^loiAoXoyVjacTai  t^  06«,  '  shall  give  praise  to  God,'  according  to 
the  usual  LXX  meaning ;  cf.  xv.  9,  which  is  quoted  from  Ps.  xvii 
(xviii).  50. 

(Si  iyi/,  Xiyat  Kipiot  is  snbstitiited  for  gar'  tftavrov  hpa^iu,  cf.  Nam.  xiy.  a8 
ftc  ;  for  maa,  y\waaa  c.r.X.  the  LXX  reads  ifiurcu  9.  7.  riy  8c<ir. 

12.  The  conclusion  is :  it  is  to  God  and  not  to  man  that  each  of 
OS  has  to  give  account.  If  e*(»  be  read  (see  below),  it  may  again 
be  noted  how  easily  St.  Paul  passes  from  Kvpios  to  Ocdt  (see  on 
vcr.  lo  and  cf.  xiv.  3  with  xv.  7). 

There  are  several  minor  variations  of  text.     cZr  ia  omitted  by  B  D  F  G  P  y.  ,  ^^TWi 
and  perhaps  the  Latin  authorities,  which  read  itaqtu.     For  hitati  of  the  TR.        fi 


590  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS       [XIV.  12-14 

WH.  read  Awo9i,<Tu  with  B  D  F  G  Chrys.,  the  Larin  authorities  readtog  reddH 
(but  Cyprian  dabit).  ry  et^  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  is  omitted  by  B  F  G 
Cypr.  Aug,  In  all  these  cases  B  is  noticeable  as  appearing  with  a  group 
which  is  almost  entirely  Western  in  character. 

13.  The  Apostle  now  passes  to  another  aspect  of  the  question. 
He  has  laid  down  very  clearly  the  rule  that  all  such  points  are  in 
ih«mselves  indifferent ;  he  has  rebuked  censoriousness  and  shown 
that  a  man  is  responsible  to  God  alone.  Now  he  turns  completely 
round  and  treats  the  question  from  the  other  side.  All  this  ia 
true,  but  higher  than  all  is  the  rule  of  Christian  charity,  and  this 
demands,  above  all,  consideration  for  the  feelings  and  consciences 
of  others. 

Mtjk^ti  oZv  . . .  Kpifufter  marks  the  transition  to  the  second  ques- 
tion by  summing  up  the  first. 

KpiKare:  r  the  play  on  words  cf.  xii.  3,  14,  xiii.  i.  'Do  not 
therefore  jud- e  one  another,  but  judge  this  for  yourself,  i.  e.  deter- 
mine this  as  your  course  of  conduct' :  cf.  2  Cor.  ii.  i. 

th  |i^  TiQivtu  . . .  Tu  d8£X()>w  .  .  ,  aKd^SaXoK  riOevai  is  suggested 
by  the  literal  meaning  01  aKavSaXov,  a  snare  or  stumbling-block 
which  is  laid  in  the  path.  St.  Paul  has  probably  derived  the  word 
(TKavbaXov  and  the  whole  thought  of  the  passage  from  our  Lord's 
words  reported  in  Matt,  xviii.  6  f.  See  also  his  treatment  of  the 
same  question  in  i  Cor.  viii.  9  f. 

irp6(rK0|i|i.a  .  .  .  t|  should  perhaps  be  omitted  with  B,  Arm.  Pesh.  As 
Weiss  points  out,  the  fact  that  jj  is  omitted  in  all  authorities  which  omit  irp. 
proves  that  the  words  cannot  have  been  left  out  accidentally.  vpoanofi/M 
would  come  in  from  i  Cor.  viii.  9  and  ver.  ao  below. 

14.  In  order  to  emphasize  the  real  motive  which  should  influ- 
ence Christians,  namely,  respect  for  the  feelings  of  others,  the 
indifference  of  all  such  things  in  themselves  is  emphatically  stated. 

iv  Kopiw  'Itjctou.  The  natural  meaning  of  these  words  is  the 
same  as  that  of  tv  Xp.  (ix.  i) ;  to  St.  Paul  the  indifference  of  all 
meats  in  themselves  is  a  natural  deduction  from  his  faith  and  life 
in  Ciirist.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  he  is  here  referring  expressly 
to  the  words  of  Christ  (Mark  vii,  15;  Matt.  xv.  11);  when  doing 

so  his  formula  is  TrapfXa^ov  diro  tov  Kvpiov. 

Koiv6v.  The  technical  term  to  express  those  customs  and  habits, 
which,  although  'common'  to  the  world,  were  forbidden  to  the 

pious     Jew.       Jos.    An/.    XIII.     i.     I    roy    KOIVov    ^iov    nporjprjpfvovsl 
I   Mace.   L   47,   62;    Acts  X.   14  in  9v8fvoTa  f<ji<ryop  map  Kowip  nU 

OKadaprov, 

81*  eauTou,  '  in  itself,'  '  in  its  own  nature.' 

That  it  iavTov  is  the  right  reading  is  shown  by  (i)  the  authority  of  KBC 
also  of  2  (Cod.  Patiriensis,  see  Introduction,  §  7)  supported  by  many  later 
MSS.,  the  VulgatL,  and  the  two  earliest  commentators  Orig.-lat.  In  Dotnitu 
trgo  lesu  nihil  commune  per  semetipsum,  hoc  est  natura  sui  dicitur,  and 
Chrys.  r%  <f>vati  4>riaiv  ovUy  i/taOapror  and  fa)  by  the  contrast  with  t^ 


ZIV.  14-17.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  39] 

K9-ii(onir^.    Si'  alrriA,  *  through  Oirirt'  (to  Theodxt  and  later  oomm.)  fa 

a  correction, 

cl  )jif|  Tu  XoyitoiA^fu  K.T.X.  Only  if  a  man  supposes  that  the 
breach  of  a  ceremonial  law  is  wrong,  and  is  compelled  by  public 
opinion  or  the  custom  of  the  Church  to  do  violence  to  his  belief,  he 
is  led  to  commit  sin ;  for  example,  if  at  the  common  Eucharistic 
meal  a  man  were  compelled  to  eat  food  against  hi»  conscience  it 
would  clearly  be  wrong. 

16.  fi  ydp.  The  ydp  (which  has  conclusive  manuscript  authority) 
implies  a  suppressed  link  in  the  argument.  'You  must  have 
respect  therefore  for  his  scruples,  although  you  may  not  share 
them,  for  if,'  &c. 

XoireiToi.  His  conscience  is  injured  and  wounded,  for  hfc  wiftully 
and  knowingly  does  what  he  thinks  is  wrong,  and  so  he  is  in  danger 
of  perishing  (an-oXXue). 

Air^p  oS  XpioTos  &niBa¥M.  Cf.  I  Cor.  viii.  10,  11.  Christ  died 
to  save  this  man  from  his  sins,  and  will  you  for  his  sake  not  give 
up  some  favourite  food  ? 

16.  fit)  pXaa(j>if)fic  ia0w  a.T.X.  Let  not  that  good  of  yours,  I  e.  your 
consciousness  of  Christian  freedom  (cf.  i  Cor.  x.  29  fi  fXfvSfpla  fiov), 
become  a  cause  of  reproach.  St.  Paul  is  addressing  the  strong,  as 
elsewhere  in  this  paragraph,  and  the  context  seems  clearly  to  point, 
at  least  primarily,  to  opinions  within  the  community,  not  to  the 
reputation  of  the  community  with  the  outside  world.  The  above 
interpretation,  therefore  (which  is  that  of  Gifford  and  Vaughan), 
is  better  than  that  which  would  refer  the  passage  to  the  reputation 
of  the  Christian  community  amongst  those  not  belonging  to  it 
(Mey-W.  Lips.  Liddon). 

17.  Do  not  lay  such  stress  on  this  freedom  of  yours  as  to  cause 
a  breach  in  the  harmony  of  the  Church ;  for  eating  and  drinking  are 
not  the  principle  of  that  kingdom  which  you  hope  to  inherit 

ii  ^aaiXcia  toO  eeoO.  An  echo  of  our  Lord's  teaching.  The 
phrase  is  used  normally  in  St.  Paul  of  that  Messianic  kingdom 
which  is  to  be  the  reward  and  goal  of  the  Christian  life ;  so 
especially  i  Cor,  vi.  9,  10,  where  it  is  laid  down  that  certain  classes 
shall  have  no  part  in  it.  Hence  it  comes  to  mean  the  principles  or 
ideas  on  which  that  kingdom  is  founded,  and  which  are  already 
exhibited  in  this  world  (cf.  i  Cor.  iv.  ao).  The  term  is,  of  course, 
derived  through  the  words  of  Christ  from  the  current  Jewish  con- 
ceptions of  an  actual  earthly  kingdom ;  how  far  exactly  such 
conceptions  have  been  spiritualized  in  Sl  Paul  it  may  be  difficult 
to  say. 

Ppucrit  Rol  v6(7if.  If,  as  is  probable,  the  weak  brethren  are 
conceived  of  as  having  Judaizing  tendencies,  there  is  a  special  point 
m  this  expression.  *  If  you  lay  so  much  stress  on  eating  and  drinking 
as  to  make  a  point  oi  indulging  in  what  you  will  at  all  costs,  you  are 


393  BPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS       [XIV.  17-2a 

in  danger  oX  falling  into  the  Judaizing  course  of  interpreting  the 
Messianic  prophecies  literally,  and  imagining  the  Messianic  kingdom 
to  be  one  of  material  plenty  *  (Iren.  V.  zxxiii.  3). 

These  words  are  often  quoted  as  condemning  any  form  of 
scrupulousness  concerning  eating  and  drinking;  but  that  is  not 
St  Paul's  idea.  He  means  that  'eating  and  drinking'  are  in 
themselves  so  unimportant  that  every  scruple  should  be  respected, 
and  every  form  of  food  willingly  given  up.  They  are  absolutely 
insignificant  in  comparison  with  '  righteousness '  and  '  peace '  and 
•joy.' 

BiKaiovJinr)  ict.X.  This  passage  describes  man's  life  in  the 
kingdom,  and  these  words  denote  not  the  relation  of  the  Christian 
to  God,  but  his  life  in  relation  to  others.  i^K(uo<nvr|  therefore  is  not 
used  in  its  technical  sense  of  the  relation  between  God  and  man, 
but  means  righteousness  or  just  dealing ;  tlpiivrf  is  the  state  of  peace 
with  one  another  which  should  characterize  Christians ;  x°P<>  ^s  the 
joy  which  comes  from  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
community;  of.  Acts  ii.  46  funXaftfiafop  Tfo<p^s  iv  ayaXXid(r«t  Kok 
of^iK&nfTi  KapSiat. 

18.  The  same  statement  is  generalized  The  man  who,  on  the 
principle  implied  by  these  virtues  {tp  rovrtf,  not  iv  rovrott),  is  Christ's 
servant,  i.  e.  who  serves  Christ  by  being  righteous  and  conciliatory 
and  charitable  towards  others,  not  by  harshly  emphasizing  his 
Christian  freedom,  is  not  only  well-pleasing  to  God,  but  will  gain 
the  approval  of  men. 

S6ki)ios  Tots  d^dptSirois.  The  contrast  to  ^\a<T<^t^'ur6»  of  ver.  16. 
Consideration  for  others  is  a  mark  of  the  Christian  character  which 
will  recommend  a  man  to  his  fellow-men.  doVt/bior,  able  to  stand 
the  test  of  inspection  and  criticism  (cf.  2  Tim.  ii.  15). 

19.  OtKO$0)iT)$ :  cf.  I  Cor.  Xiv.  a  6  vavra  vpot  aUodoft^p  fivtaSm, 
I  TheSS.  V.  1 1  oWoiontirt  ils  rov  iva. 

it^KOfiw  (KABFGLP3)  is  reallj more  expressive  than  the  tomewhat 
obvious  correction  Siifiutfuw  (C  D  £»  Latt).  D  £  F  G  who  add  <pv\&^oiitar 
after  dMi^Xovt. 

20.  KardXuc  .  .  .  ff>yor  keeps  up  tne  metaphor  suggested  by 
•tKoionTft.  'Build  up,  do  not  destroy,  that  Christian  communi^ 
which  God  has  founded  in  Christ.'  Cf.  i  Cor.  iii.  9  Qfov  yap  iafuv 
avvtpyoL  6(ov  ytatpyiov,  Qtov  MKoiofiTf  itrrt.  The  words  tip^yf  and 
•iKoiofjifl  both  point  to  the  community  rather  than  the  individual 
Christian. 

vdfTa  |Ur  ita9ap<fi:  cf.  I  Cor.  X.  S3  frdvra  Z^tvrv,  aXX'  •i  wii^rm 
9Vfi<f)fptt.  ndvTa  c|coTM>,  aXX'  ov  warra  otKoiofUi. 

&XX&  KOK^r :  the  subject  to  this  must  be  supplied  from  rdyra.  It 
b  a  nice  question  to  decide  to  whom  these  words  refer,  (i)  Are 
they  addressed  to  the  strong,  those  who  by  eating  are  hkely  to  give 
ofifence  to  others  (so  Va.  Oltr.,  and  the  majority  of  commentaries) } 


XIV.  20-aa]       ON  scrupulousness  393 

or  (a)  are  they  addressed  to  the  weak,  those  who  by  eating  what  they 
think  it  wrong  to  eat  injure  their  own  consciences  (so  Gif.  Mey.-W. 
and  others)  ?  In  the  former  case  6ia  npoaKSiiftaros  (on  the  8td  cf.  ii. 
S7,  iv.  11)  means  'so  as  to  cause  offence/  in  the  latter  'so  as  to 
take  offence'  (Tyndale,  'who  eateth  with  hurt  of  his  conscience'). 
Perhaps  the  transition  to  ver.  ai  is  slightly  better  if  we  take  (i). 

SI.  A  thing  in  itself  indifferent  may  be  wrong  if  it  injures  the 
consciences  of  others;  on  the  other  hand,  to  give  up  what  will  injure 
others  is  a  noble  act. 

caXJr :  cf.  i  Cor.  vii.  i  and  for  the  thought  i  Cor.  viii.  13  iiAirtp, 

•I  Pp&iia  aitavidki(iit  rhv  uSt\<p6t>  fiov,  oi  fi^  <f)dyo»  Kpta  €ts  t6v  alS>va,  iva 

ft^  rir  ditX<f»6¥  pov  aKopiaikiata,  We  know  the  situation  implied 
in  the  Corinthian  Epistle,  and  that  it  did  not  arise  from  the  existence 
of  a  party  who  habitually  abstained  from  flesh  :  St.  Paul  was 
merely  taking  the  strongest  instance  he  could  think  of.  It  is 
equally  incorrect  therefore  to  argue  from  this  verse  that  there  was 
a  sect  of  vegetarians  and  total  abstainers  in  Rome.  St.  Paul 
merely  takes  extreme  forms  of  self-deprivation,  which  he  uses  as 
Instances.  '  I  would  live  like  an  Essene  rather  than  do  anything  to 
offend  my  brother.' 

The  TR.  adds  after  wpoffKSwrtt  the  gloss  ^  oKavta\((tTai  Ij  dattvtt  with  B 
Western  and  Syrian  authorities  (K«BDEFGLP,  &c.,  Vnlg.  Sah.,  Bas. 
Chry».).  They  are  omitted  by  K  A  C  3,  Pesh.  Boh.,  Grig,  and  Orig.-lat.  Thia 
k  a  yery  clear  inatance  of  a  Western  reading  in  B  ;  cf.  xi.  6. 

82.  <rd  vi<rrtr  <|k  Jx«i5«  Your  faith  is  sufficient  to  see  that  all 
these  things  are  a  matter  of  indifference.  Be  content  with  that 
knowledge,  it  is  a  matter  for  your  own  conscience  and  God.  Do 
not  boast  of  it,  or  wound  those  not  so  strong  as  yourself. 

The  preponderance  of  authorities  (K  ABC,  Vnlg.  ccdd.  Boh.,  Orig.-lat.) 
compels  OS  to  read  ^  Ix^it.  The  omission  of  Ijv  (D  E  F  G  L  P  3,  Vulg. 
€0da.  Syrr.  Boh.,  Chrys.  &c.)  is  a  Western  correction  and  an  improvement. 

|iaK(ipio«  it.T.\.  Blessed  (see  on  iv.  6,  7)  because  of  his  strong 
faith  is  the  man  who  can  courageously  do  what  his  reason  tells  him 
that  he  may  do  without  any  doubt  or  misgiving  Kpivmv,  to  'judge 
censoriously  so  as  to  condemn,'  cf.  ii.  i,  3,  27).  doM/xafrt  (i.  a8, 
iL  18)  to  '  approve  of  after  testing  and  examining.' 

23.  6  S^  SiaKpiKiSiicrafi :  see  on  iv.  30.  If  a  man  doubts  or 
hesitates  and  then  eats,  he  is,  by  the  very  fact  that  he  doubts, 
condemned  for  his  weakness  of  faith.  If  his  faith  were  strong  he 
would  have  no  doubt  or  hesitation. 

noM  8^  S  oOk  ^k  irioTc&is,  dftapria  lm¥.  witrru  fe  subjective,  the 
strong  conviction  of  what  is  right  and  of  the  principles  of  salvation. 
'  Weakly  to  comply  with  other  persons'  customs  without  being 
convinced  of  their  indifference  is  itself  sin.'  This  maxim  (i)  is  not 
concerned  with  the  usual  conduct  of  unbelievers,  (2)  must  not  be 


394  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS    [XIV.  23-XV.  L 

extended  to  cases  different  in  character  from  those  St  Paul  is 
considering.     It  is  not  a  general  maxim  concerning  faith. 

This  verse  hai  had  a  very  important  part  to  play  in  controveny.  How 
important  may  be  seen  from  the  use  made  of  it  in  Augustine  Contra  lulianum 
iv,  one  passage  of  which  (§  3a)  may  be  quoted:  Ex  quo  coUii^itur,  etiam 
ipsa  bona  opera  quae  faciunt  infidehs,  non  ipsorum  esse,  sed  illius  qui  bene 
utilur  malis.  Ipsorum  autem  esse  peccata  quibus  et  bona  male  faciunt ; 
quia  ta  non  fideli,  sed  infidell,  hoc  est  stulta  et  noxia  faciunt  voluntate: 
qualis  voluntas,  nullo  Christiana  dubitante,  arbor  est  mala,  quaefacere  non 
potest  nisi  fructus  tnalos,  id  est,  sola  peccata.  Omne  enim,  velis  nolis.  quod 
non  est  ex  fide,  peccatum  est.  Since  this  time  it  has  been  used  to  support  the 
two  propositions  that  works  done  before  justification  are  sin  and  consequently 
that  the  heathen  are  unable  to  do  good  works.  Into  the  merits  of  these 
controversies  it  will  be  apart  from  our  pui-pose  to  enter.  It  is  sufficient  to 
notice  that  this  verse  is  in  such  a  context  completely  mi'^quoted.  As  Chry- 
sostom  says,  '  When  a  person  does  not  feel  sure,  nor  believe  that  a  thing  it 
clean,  how  can  he  do  else  than  sin  ?  Now  all  tliese  things  have  been 
spoken  by  Paul  of  the  object  in  hand,  not  of  everything.'  The  words  do 
not  apply  to  those  who  are  not  Christians,  nor  to  the  works  of  those  who 
are  Christians  done  before  they  became  such,  but  to  the  conduct  of  believing 
Christians ;  and  faith  is  vsed  somewhat  in  the  way  we  should  speak  of 
a  '  good  conscience  * ;  '  everything  which  is  not  done  with  a  clear  conscience 
is  sin '  So  Aquinas,  Summa  i.  2,  qu.  xix,  art.  v.  omne  quod  mom  *st  ex  fide 
peccatum  est.  id  est,  omne  quod  est  contra  conscitntiam. 

On  the  doxology  (xvi.  35-27),  which  in  some  MSS.  finds  a  place  here,  we 
the  Introduction,  §  8. 

XV.  1.  The  beginning  of  chap,  xv  is  connected  immediately 
with  what  precedes,  and  there  is  no  break  in  the  argument  until 
ver.  13  is  reached;  but  towards  the  close,  especially  in  vv.  7-13, 
the  language  of  the  Apostle  is  more  general.  He  passes  from  the 
special  points  at  issue  to  the  broad  underlying  principle  of  Christian 
unity,  and  especially  to  the  relation  of  the  two  great  sections  of  the 
Church — the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  Christians. 

6(t>£iXo|iCf  8^.  Such  weakness  is,  it  is  true,  a  sign  of  absence  of 
faith,  but  we  who  are  strong  in  faith  ought  to  bear  with  scruples 
weak  though  they  may  be.  01  SukaTot  not,  as  in  i  Cor.  i.  36,  the 
rich  or  the  powerful,  but  as  in  s  Cor.  xii.  10,  xiii.  9,  of  the  morally 
strong. 

Pao-Td^eif :  cf.  Gal.  ri.  a  ak\f)\»v  rh  /Sdpjj  ^a<TTa(fn.  In  classical 
Greek  the  ordinary  word  would  be  (f>(peiv,  but  /Saordffiv  seems  to 
have  gradually  come  into  use  in  the  figurative  sense.  It  is  used  o^ 
bearing  the  cross  both  literally  (John  xix.  17),  and  figuratively 
(Luke  xiv.  27V  We  find  it  in  later  versions  of  the  O.  T.  In  Aq., 
Symm.  and  Theod.  in  Is.  xl.  11,  Ixvi.  12;  in  the  two  latter  in 
Is.  Ixiii.  9;  in  Matt.  viii.  17  quoting  Is.  liii.  3:  in  none  of  these 
passages  is  the  word  used  in  the  LXX.  It  became  a  favourite  word 
in  Christian  literature,  Ign.  Ad  Polyc.  i,  Epist.  ad  Diog.  §  10  (quoted 
by  Lft.). 

fiT)  ^auTois  dp^aKcir:  cf.  I  Cor.  X.  33  Kada>r  Koyo)  itavrtL.  matra 
ipfaKu,  fth  CnTQ>v  TO  €fimiTov  (Tv^cpifMv,  where  St.  Paul  is  describing  his 


ZV.2-4.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  395 

own  conduct  in  very  similar  circumstances.     He  strikes  at  the  root 
of  Christian  disunion,  which  is  selfishness. 

2.  CIS  t6  dyadoK  irpos  oiKoSofii]i> :  cf.  xiv.  16  vfx&v  t6  dya66v,  19  rd 
f^t  olKoSonfjt  rfis  tls  aAXijXovf.  The  end  or  purpose  of  pleasing  them 
must  be  the  promotion  of  what  is  absolutely  to  their  good,  further 
defined  by  oUoBon^,  their  edification.  These  words  limit  and 
explain  what  St.  Paul  means  by  '  pleasing  men.'  In  Gal.  i.  lo 
(cf.  Eph.  vi.  6 ;  i  Thess.  ii.  4)  he  had  condemned  it.  In  i  Cor.  ix. 
30-23  ^^  ^^^  made  it  a  leading  principle  of  his  conduct.  The  rule 
is  that  we  are  to  please  men  for  their  own  good  and  not  our  own. 

The  y6p  after  ticaarot  of  the  TR.  should  be  omitted.     For  ijfuar  •ome 
authorities  (F  G  P  3,  Valg.,  many  Fathers)  read  ifiSv. 

8.  Kol  yAp  4  Xpiaros  b.t.X.  The  precept  just  laid  down  is 
enforced  by  the  example  of  Christ  (cf.  xiv.  15).  As  Christ  bore 
our  reproaches,  so  must  we  bear  those  of  others. 

KaGus  y^YP**''"'**'  St.  Paul,  instead  of  continuing  the  sentence, 
changes  the  construction  and  inserts  a  verse  of  the  O.  T.  [Ps. 
Ixviii  (Ixix).  10,  quoted  exactly  according  to  the  LXX],  which  he 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  Christ.     For  the  construction  cf.  ix.  7. 

The  Psalm  quoted  describes  the  sufferings  at  the  hands  of  the 
ungodly  of  the  typically  righteous  man,  and  passages  taken  from  it 
are  often  in  the  N.  T.  referred  to  our  Lord,  to  whom  they  would 
apply  as  being  emphatically  'the  just  one.'  Ver.  4  is  quoted 
John  XV.  25,  ver.  9  a  in  John  ii.  17,  ver.  9  b  in  Rom.  xv.  3,  ver.  12 
in  Matt,  xxvii.  27-30,  ver.  21  in  Matt,  xxvii.  34,  and  John  xix.  29, 
ver.  22,  t  in  Rom.  zL  9,  ver.  25a  in  Acts  i.  ao.  (See  Liddon, 
ad  loc.) 

ot  dKciSiafioC  R.T.X.  In  the  original  the  righteous  man  is  repre- 
sented as  addressing  God  and  saying  that  the  reproaches  against 
God  he  has  to  bear.  St.  Paul  transfers  the  words  to  Christ,  who  is 
represented  as  addressing  a  man.  Christ  declares  that  in  suifering 
it  was  the  reproaches  or  sufferings  of  others  that  He  bore. 

4.  The  quotation  is  justified  by  the  enduring  value  of  the  O.  T. 

•irpo€Yp<£<|>r],  'were  written  before,'  in  contrast  with  fjfitTfpav: 
cf.  Eph.  iii.  3 ;  Jude  4,  but  with  a  reminiscence  of  the  technical 
meaning  of  ypdcfxiv  for  what  is  written  as  Scripture. 

SiSoaKaXiaf,  'instruction*:  cf.  a  Tim.  iii.  16  ndaa  ypa(f)ii  6f6- 
vvtvoTos  Koi  ct>0cX(/L(Of  rrpos  diSaaKoXiav. 

T^K  AttiSo  :  the  specifically  Christian  feeling  of  hope.  It  is  the 
supreme  confidence  which  arises  from  trust  in  Christ  that  in  no  cir- 
cumstances will  the  Christian  be  ashamed  of  that  wherein  he  trusteth 
(Phil.  i.  20) ;  a  confidence  which  tribulation  only  strengthens,  for 
it  makes  more  certain  his  power  oi  endurance  and  his  experience 
of  consolation.  On  the  relation  of  patience  to  hope  cf.  ▼.  3  and 
I  Thess.  L  3. 


196  SPISTLK  TO  THE  ROMAKft  [XV.  A-^ 

This  passage,  and  that  quoted  above  from  i  Tim.  iii.  i6,  lay 
down  very  clearly  the  belief  in  the  abiding  value  of  the  O.  T, 
which  underlies  St  Paul's  use  of  it  But  while  emphasizing  its 
Talue  they  also  limit  it  The  Scriptures  are  to  be  read  for  our 
moral  instruction, '  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  which 
is  in  righteousness ' ;  for  the  perfection  of  the  Christian  character, 
'  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete,  furnished  unto  every  good 
work ' ;  and  because  they  establish  the  Christian  hope  which  is  in 
Christ  Two  points  then  St  Paul  teaches,  the  permanent  value  of 
the  great  moral  and  spiritual  truths  of  the  O.  T.,  and  the  witness 
of  the  O.  T.  to  Christ  His  words  cannot  be  quoted  to  prove  more 
than  this. 

There  ai«  in  thla  Ten*  •  few  IdloeyBcrMiet  of  B  which  muij  be  noted  b«t 
need  not  be  accepted;  iypi^  (with  Volg.  Orig.-lat.)  for  wpotypitp^ i 
wiyra  before  <b  rilw  i)/i.  (with  P) ;  r^t  wapaK\^iir*wt  repeated  after  fx^M*' 
(with  Clem.-AL).  The  TR.  with  N«  A  L  P  3,  &c  tnbititutea  wfo«ypi(pii  for 
hpHl  in  the  lecond  place,  and  with  C««  D  £  F  G  P,  &&,  Volg.  Boh.  Hard, 
omiti  the  second  8UL 

5.  After  the  digression  of  ver.  4  the  Apostle  rettuns  to  the  sub- 
ject of  w.  1-3,  and  simu  up  his  teaching  by  a  prayer  for  the  onity 
of  the  community. 

i  Zk  6cd«  Ti)s  Avo|»orfit  haI  T()f  vapaKX^<re«t :  cf.  i  et6t  r^t  Wp4>^ 
(ver.  33;  PhiL  iv.  9;  i  Thess.  v.  •3;  Heb.  xiii.  so),  r^t  fkwidot 
(ver.   13),   ndoTjt  napaKX^vtmt   (s   Cor.  L  3),  wd<n)s  x'^"'   (>   Pct. 

V.  10). 

rh  oM  ^porctr :  cf.  Phil.  ii.  S-5  wXtipmvart  fum  r^v  K^P^^t  ^  *^ 
airh  <f>povrJT€  .  .  .  rovro  (ppovtiTt  iv  ifup  &  Koi  tp  Xp.  'I. 

KarA  Xpiorir  'ItiaoGr:  cf.  S  Cor.  xi.  17  i  XaX«»,  ov  cari  \.vpum 
XaX« :  Col.  ii.  8  ov  xor^  X/>. :  £ph.  iv.  S4  ritv  Kaivbp  ipOpinrop  rbit 
warii  Qthp  KriaOtvra  (Rom.  viii.  87,  which  is  generally  quoted,  is  not 
in  point).  These  examples  seem  to  show  that  the  expression  must 
mean  '  in  accordance  with  the  character  or  example  of  Christ' 

9^  for  80(9,  a  later  form,  cf  a  Thest.  iii.  16 ;  a  Tim.  1.  16,  18 ;  ii.  »$ ; 

Eph.  L  1 7  (bat  with  variant  Sii^  in  the  last  two  cases).  Xp.  'Itjo.  (B  D  £  G  L, 
&C.,  Boh.  Chrys.),  not  'Iijff.  X/).  K  A  C  F  P  3  Vulg.,  Orig.-lat  Theodrt. 

6.  Unity  and  harmony  of  worship  will  be  the  result  of  unity 
of  life. 

A)iio0ufAa8i$r, '  with  unity  of  mind.'  A  common  word  in  the  Acts 
(L  14,  Ac). 

■thv  Qihv  Kal  waWpa  tow  Kupiow  ^^w  *li|(ro8  XpioroG.  This  expres- 
sion occurs  also  in  a  Cor.  i.  3  ;  xi.  3 1 ;  Eph.  i.  3 ;  i  Pet.  i.  3.  In 
Col.  i.  3,  which  is  also  quoted,  the  correct  reading  is  r^  efw  naTp\ 
Tov  Kvpiov  fip.i>v  *l.  X.  Two  translations  are  possible :  (i)  '  God  even 
the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ '  (Mey.-W.  Gif.  Lid.,  Lips,). 
In  favour  of  this  it  is  pointed  out  that  while  warrip  expects  some 
correlative  word,  B«6t  is  naturally  absolute;    and  that  i  &'ot  tuH 


XV.  6-8.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  597 

warffp  occurs  absolutely  (as  in  I  Cor.  XV.  24  irav  wapaiifltH  ri/w  fiam- 
\tiav  Ty  e€^  Kai  troTpi),  an  argument  the  point  of  which  does  not 
seem  clear,  and  which  suggests  that  the  first  argument  has  not 
much  weight.  (2)  It  is  better  and  simpler  to  take  the  words  in 
their  natural  meaning,  '  The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ' ;  (Va.  Oltr.  Go.  and  others),  with  which  cf.  Eph. i.  17  6  eeAs 
tov  Kvplov  ^ji&v  *l.  X. :  Matt,  xxvii.  46 ;  Jn.  xx.  17 ;  Heb.  i.  9. 

7.  The  principles  laid  down  in  this  section  of  the  Epistle  are 
now  generalized.  All  whom  Christ  has  received  should,  without 
any  distinction,  be  accepted  into  His  Church.  This  is  intended 
to  apply  especially  to  the  main  division  existing  at  that  time  in  the 
community,  that  between  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians. 

%ih  irpoaXafi^ciKcaOc  dXXi^Xous  k.t.X.  :  the  command  is  no  longer 
to  the  strong  to  admit  the  weak,  but  to  all  sections  of  the  com- 
munity alike  to  receive  and  admit  those  who  differ  from  them ;  so 
St.  Paul  probably  said  vfiat,  not  fjfias.  The  latter  he  uses  in  ver.  i, 
where  he  is  identifying  himself  with  the  '  strong,'  the  former  he  uses 
here,  where  he  is  addressing  the  whole  community.  On  duJ  cf.  Eph, 
ii.  II ;  I  Thess.  v.  11 :  on  irpoaXafi^avtadt  see  xiv.  i,  3. 

l/Ms  is  read  by  K  A  C  E  F  G  L,  Vulg.  Eoh.  Syrr.,  Orig.-lat.  Chrys. ;  H/uit 
by  B  D  P3.  B  is  again  Western,  and  its  authority  on  the  distinction  between 
^fxas  and  vfias  is  less  trostwortiiy  than  on  most  other  points  (see  WH.  tt. 
pp.  ai8,  310). 

CIS  SiJfoK  0605  with  frpoo-eXajS"-© :  *in  order  to  promote  the 
jlory  of  God.'  As  the  following  verses  show,  Christ  has  sum- 
moned both  Jews  and  Greeks  into  His  kingdom  in  order  to 
promote  the  glory  of  God,  to  exhibit  in  the  one  case  His  faithful- 
ness, in  the  other  His  mercy.  So  in  Phil.  ii.  11  the  object  of 
Christ's  glory  is  to  promote  the  glory  of  God  the  Father. 

8.  St.  Paul  has  a  double  object.  He  writes  to  remind  the  Gen- 
tiles that  it  is  through  the  Jews  that  they  are  called,  the  Jews  that 
the  aim  and  purpose  of  their  existence  is  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles. 
The  Gentiles  must  remember  that  Christ  became  a  Jew  to  save 
them ;  the  Jew  that  Christ  came  among  them  in  order  that  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  might  be  blessed :  both  must  realize  that  the 
aim  of  the  whole  is  to  proclaim  God's  glory. 

This  passage  is  connected  by  undoubted  links  {816  ver.  7 ;  Xry«» 
yap  ver.  8)  with  what  precedes,  and  forms  the  conclusion  of  the 
argument  after  the  manner  of  the  concluding  verses  of  ch.  viii.  and 
ch.  xi.  This  connexion  makes  it  probable  that  '  the  relations  of 
Jew  and  Gentile  were  directly  or  indirectly  involved  in  the  rela- 
tions of  the  weak  and  the  strong.'     (Hort,  Jiom.  and  Eph.  p.  29.) 

SidKOfoi*  . . .  ircpiTO(tTis :  not  '  a  minister  of  the  circumcised,'  still 
less  a  *  minister  of  the  true  circumcision  of  the  spirit,'  which  would 
be  introducing  an  idea  quite  alien  to  the  context,  but '  a  minister 
of  circumcision'  (so  Gifibrd,  who  has  an  excellent  note),  Le.  ta 


39^  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [ZV.  8-ia 

cany  out  the  promises  implied  in  that  covenant  the  seal  of  which 
was  circumcision ;  so  a  Cor.  iii.  6  diaK6t>ovt  Kaiinjt  iiadrjKrjg,  In  the 
Ep.  to  the  Galatians  (iv.  4,  5)  St.  Paul  had  said  that  Christ  wai 
'  born  of  a  woman,  bom  under  the  law,  that  He  might  redeem  them 
which  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of 
sons.'  On  the  Promise  and  Circumcision  see  Gen.  xii.  1-3,  xviL 
1-14. 

The  privileges  of  the  Jews  which  St.  Paul  dwells  on  are  as  fol- 
lows :  (i)  Christ  has  Himself  fulfilled  the  condition  of  being  circum- 
cised: the  circumcised  therefore  must  not  be  condemned,  (a)  The 
primary  object  of  this  was  to  fulfil  the  promises  made  to  the  Jews 
(cf  Rom.  ii.  9,  10).  (3)  It  was  only  as  a  secondary  result  of  thig 
Messiahship  that  the  Gentiles  glorified  God.  (4)  While  the  bless- 
ing came  to  the  Jews  i/nip  aXr]dfias  to  preserve  God's  consistency,  it 
came  to  the  Gentiles  imip  eXeowt  for  God's  loving-kindness. 

ytftvTJaOai,  which  should  be  read  with  K  A  E  L  P  3  (ytytnnjffSt)  ;  it  WM 
altered  into  the  more  usual  aorist  ytviaOai  (B  C  D  F  G),  perhai>s  bMaoM  it 
was  supposed  to  be  co-ordinated  with  So^iaai. 

tAs  iiroYY^^io?  f^y  iroT^pwK '.  cf.  ix.  4,  5. 

0.  rh  8i  lOt'T)  . . .  Soldaai.  Two  constructions  are  possible  for 
these  words:  (i)  they  may  be  taken  as  directly  subordinate  to  X«y» 
yap  (Weiss,  Oltr.  Go.).  The  only  object  in  this  construction  would 
be  to  contrast  imep  Aeowr  with  inip  aXrideias.    But  the  real  antithesis 

of  the  passage  is  between  /3f/3atw<rat  ras  inayyikias  and  TO  e^w;  8of(i- 

vai:  and  hence  (a)  to.  8f . . .  (6vrf . . .  bo^daai  should  be  taken  as 
subordinate  to  ets  t6  and  co-ordinate  with  ^t^aiSxrai  (Gif.  Mey. 
Lid.,  Va.).  With  this  construction  the  point  of  the  passage 
becomes  much  greater,  the  call  of  the  Gentiles  is  shown  to  be  (as 
it  certainly  was),  equally  with  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  to  the 
Jews,  dependent  on  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  (iv.  11,  is, 
16,  17). 

Ka6us  Yeypairnu.  The  Apostle  proceeds,  as  so  often  in  the 
Epistle,  to  support  his  thesis  by  a  series  of  passages  quoted  from 
theO.T. 

8ii  TooTo  K.T.X. :  taken  almost  exactly  from  the  LXX  of  Ps.  xvii 
(xviii).  50.  In  the  original  David,  as  the  author  of  the  Psalm,  is 
celebrating  a  victory  over  the  surrounding  nations :  in  the  Messianic 
application  Christ  is  represented  as  declaring  that  among  the 
Gentiles,  i.  e.  in  the  midst  of,  and  therefore  together  with  them,  He 
will  praise  God.     i^opMKoyr)aofuu, '  I  will  praise  thee ' :  cf.  xiv.  1 1. 

10.  Eu^pikv%i\n  K.T.X. :  from  the  LXX  of  Deut.  xxxii.  43.  The 
Hebrew,  translated  literally,  appears  to  mean,  *  Rejoice,  O  ye  nations, 
His  people.'  Moses  is  represented  as  calling  on  the  nations  to 
rejoice  over  the  salvation  of  Israel.  St  Paul  takes  the  words  aa 
interpreted  by  the  LXX  to  imply  that  the  Gentiles  and  chosen 
people  shall  unite  in  the  praise  of  God. 


ZV.  U-18.]  ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  399 

11.  AlyeiTt  K.T.X.:  Ps.  cxvi(cxvii).  i.  LXX.  An  appeal  to  all 
nations  to  praise  the  Lord. 

There  are  flight  variations  in  the  Greek  text  and  in  the  LXX.  For  v&vra 
rd  lOyri  rdv  Kvpiov  C  F  G  L  have  riy  K.  ir.  r.  i.  agreeing  with  the  order  of 
the  LXX.  hatvta&Tuoav  is  read  by  K  A  B  C  D  E  Chrys.  (so  LXX  A  M 
alffadrttftray)  Iwaifiaart  by  latt  MSS.  with  later  LXX  MSS. 

12.  'Eorai  ^  ^((a  k.t.X.  :  from  Is.  xi.  10,  a  description  of  the 
Messianic  kingdom,  which  is  to  take  the  place  of  that  Jewish  king- 
dom which  is  soon  to  be  destroyed.  The  quotation  follows  the 
LXX,  which  is  only  a  paraphrase  of  the  Hebrew ;  the  latter  runs 
(RV.)  '  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  Uie  root  of  Jesse, 
which  standeth  for  an  ensign  of  the  peoples,  unto  him  shall  the 
Gentiles  seeL' 

18.  The  Apostle  concludes  by  invoking  on  his  hearers  a  bless- 
ing— that  their  faith  may  give  them  a  life  full  of  joy  and  peace,  that 
in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  they  may  abound  in  hope. 

4  eeis  Tf]5  AiriSos :  cf.  ver.  5.  The  special  attribute,  as  in  fact 
the  whole  of  the  benediction,  is  suggested  by  the  concluding  words 
of  the  previous  quotation. 

irooTif  x«P*s  »«'  tlp-h^%'  The  joy  and  peace  with  God  which  is 
the  result  of  true  faith  in  the  Christian's  heart.     On  tlp^vt)  see  i.  7. 

For  wXijpwaai  (most  MSS.)  B  F  G  have  the  cnrioos  variant  irkripo(pop^atu. 
B  reads  iw  wdap  x^Pt  ""^  tlprrjvji  and  omits  tis  t6  vtptaatiuv :  the  peca- 
liarities  of  this  MS.  in  the  last  few  verses  are  noticeable.    D  £  F  G  omit 

The  general  question  of  the  genuineness  of  these  last  two  chapters  is 
discussed  in  the  Litroduction  (§  9).  It  will  be  convenient  to  mention  in 
the  course  of  the  Commentary  some  few  of  the  detailed  objections  that  have 
been  made  to  special  passages.  In  xv.  1-13  the  only  serious  objection  is 
that  which  wai  first  raised  by  Baur  and  has  been  repeated  by  others  since. 
The  statements  in  this  section  are  supposed  to  be  of  too  conciliatory  a 
character ;  especially  is  this  said  to  be  the  case  with  ver.  8.  '  How  can  we 
imagine,'  writes  Baur,  '  that  the  Apostle,  in  an  Epistle  of  such  a  nature  and 
•fter  all  that  had  passed  on  the  subject,  would  make  such  a  concession  to  the 
Jewish  Christians  as  to  call  Jesus  Christ  a  minister  of  circumcision  to  confirm 
the  promises  of  God  made  to  the  Fathers?'  To  this  it  maybe  answered 
that  that  b  exactly  the  point  of  view  of  the  Epistle.  It  is  brought  out  most 
clearly  in  xi.  17-25 ;  it  is  implied  in  the  position  of  priority  always  given  to 
tiie  Jew  (i.  i6  ;  ii.  9,  10)  ;  it  is  emphasized  in  the  stress  continually  laid  on 
the  relations  of  the  new  Gospel  to  the  Old  Testament  (ch.  iv,  &c.),  and 
the  importance  of  the  promises  which  were  fulfilled  (i.  3  ;  ix.  4).  Baur'a 
difficulty  arose  from  an  erroneous  conception  of  the  teaching  and  position  of 
St  PanL    For  other  argument*  see  Mangold,  D«r  Romerbrief,  pp.  81-100. 


What  sect  or  party  is  referred  to  in  Rom.  XIV? 

There  has  been  great  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the  persons 
referred  to  in  this  section  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  but  all 
commentators   seem   to   agree   in  assuming   that   the  Aposde  is 


400  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS     [XIV-XV   la 

dealing  with  certain  special  circumstances  which  have  arisen  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  that  the  weak  and  the  strong  represent  two 
parties  in  that  Church. 

I.  The  oldest  explanation  appears  to  be  that  which  sees  in  these 
disputes  a  repetition  of  those  which  prevailed  in  the  Corinthian 
Church,  as  to  the  same  or  some  similar  form  of  Judaizing  practices 
(Orig.  Chrys.  Aug.  Neander,  Ac).  In  favour  of  this  may  be 
quoted  the  earlier  portion  of  the  fifteenth  chapter,  where  there  is 
clearly  a  reference  to  the  distinction  between  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christians,  But  against  this  opinion  it  is  pointed  out  that  such 
Jewish  objections  to  '  things  offered  to  idols,'  or  to  meats  killed  in 
any  incorrect  manner,  or  to  swine's  flesh,  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  typical  instances  quoted,  the  abstinence  altogether  from  flesh 
meat  and  from  wine  (vv.  a,  ai). 

a.  A  second  suggestion  (Eichhom)  is  that  which  sees  in  these 
Roman  ascetics  the  influence  of  the  Pythagorean  and  other  heathen 
sects  which  practised  and  taught  abstinence  from  meat  and  wine 
and  other  forms  of  self-discipline.  But  these  again  will  not  satisfy 
all  the  circumstances.  These  Roman  Christians  were,  it  is  said,  in 
the  habit  of  observing  scrupulously  certain  days :  and  this  custom 
did  not,  as  far  as  we  know,  prevail  among  any  heathen  sect. 

3.  Baur  sees  here  Ebionite  Ciiristians  of  the  character  repre- 
sented by  the  Clementine  literature,  and  in  accordance  with  his 
general  theory  he  regards  them  as  representing  the  majority  of 
the  Roman  Church.  That  this  last  addition  to  the  theory  is  tenable 
seems  impossible.  So  far  as  there  is  any  definiteness  in  Sl  Paul's 
language  he  clearly  represents  the  '  strong '  as  directing  the  policy 
of  the  community.  They  are  told  to  receive  '  him  that  is  weak  in 
faith ' ;  they  seem  to  have  the  power  to  admit  him  or  reject  him. 
All  that  he  on  his  side  can  do  is  to  indulge  in  excessive  criticism. 
Nor  is  the  first  part  of  the  theory  really  more  satisfactory.  Of 
the  later  Ebionites  we  have  very  considerable  knowledge  derived 
from  the  Clementine  literature  and  from  Epiphanius  {Haer.  xxx), 
but  it  is  an  anachronism  to  discover  these  developments  in  a  period 
nearly  two  centuries  earlier.  Nor  again  is  it  conceivable  that 
St.  Paul  would  have  treated  a  developed  Judaism  in  the  lenient 
manner  in  which  he  writes  in  this  chapter. 

4.  Less  objection  perhaps  applies  to  the  modification  of  thii 
theory,  which  sees  in  these  sectaries  some  of  the  Essene  influence 
which  probably  prevailed  everywhere  throughout  the  Jewish  world 
(Ritschl,  Mey.-W.  Lid.  Lft.  Gif.  Oltr.).  This  view  fulfils  the 
three  conditions  of  the  case.  The  Essenes  were  Jevish,  they  were 
ascetic,  and  they  observed  certain  days.  If  the  theory  is  put  in  the 
form  not  that  Essenism  existed  as  a  sect  in  Rome,  which  is  highly 
improbable,  but  that  there  was  Essene  influence  in  the  Jewish  com- 
mimity  there,  it  is  possible,      fet  if  any  one  compares  St.  Paul'f 


XIV.-XV.  18.'J         ON  SCRUPULOUSNESS  40I 

language  in  other  Epistles  with  that  which  he  uses  here,  he  will 
find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  the  Apostle  would  recommend 
compliance  with  customs  which  arose,  not  from  weak-minded 
scrupulousness,  but  from  a  completely  inadequate  theory  of  religion 
and  life.  Hort  {Rom.  and  Eph.,  p.  27  f.)  writes :  '  The  true  origin 
of  these  abstinences  must  remain  somewhat  uncertain :  but  much 
the  most  probable  suggestion  is  that  they  come  from  an  Essene 
element  in  the  Roman  Church,  such  as  afterwards  affected  the 
Colossian  Church.'  But  later  he  modified  his  opinion  {Judatsiic 
Christianity,  p.  ia8)*  '  There  is  no  tangible  evidence  for  Essenism 
out  of  Palestine.' 

All  these  theories  have  this  in  common,  that  they  suppose  St.  Paul 
to  be  dealing  with  a  definite  sect  or  body  in  the  Roman  Church. 
But  as  our  examination  of  the  Epistle  has  proceeded,  it  has  become 
more  and  more  clear  that  there  is  little  or  no  special  reference  in 
the  arguments.  Both  in  the  controversial  portion  and  in  the 
admonitory  portion,  we  find  constant  reminiscences  of  earlier 
situations,  but  always  with  the  sting  of  controversy  gone.  St.  Paul 
writes  throughout  with  the  remembrance  of  his  own  former  expe- 
rience, and  not  with  a  view  to  special  difficulties  in  the  Roman 
community.  He  writes  on  all  these  vexed  questions,  not  because 
they  have  arisen  there,  but  because  they  may  arise.  The  Church 
of  Rome  consists,  as  he  knows,  of  both  Jewish  and  heathen 
Christians.  These  discordant  elements  may,  he  fears,  unless  wise 
counsels  prevail  produce  the  same  dissensions  as  have  occurred 
in  Galatia  or  Corinth. 

Hort  (Judaistic  Christianity,  p.  ia6)  recognizes  this  feature  in 
the  doctrinal  portion  of  the  Epistle :  '  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,'  he 
writes,  '  respecting  this  Epistle  to  the  Romans  .  .  .  that  while  it 
discusses  the  question  of  the  Law  with  great  emphasis  and  lulness, 
it  does  so  without  the  slightest  sign  that  there  is  a  reference  to 
a  controversy  then  actually  existing  in  the  Roman  Church.'  Unior- 
tunately  he  has  not  applied  the  same  theory  to  this  practical 
portion  of  the  Epistle :  if  he  had  done  so  it  would  have  presented 
just  the  solution  required  by  all  that  he  notices.  'There  is  no 
reference,'  he  writes,  '  to  a  burning  controversy.'  '  The  matter  is 
dealt  with  simply  as  one  of  individual  conscience.'  He  contrasts 
the  tone  with  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  All  these 
features  find  their  best  explanation  in  a  theory  which  supposes 
that  St.  Paul's  object  in  this  portion  of  the  Epistle,  is  the  same 
as  that  which  has  been  suggested  in  the  doctrinal  portion. 

If  this  theory  be  correct,  then  our  interpretation  of  the  passage 
is  somewhat  different  from  that  which  has  usually  been  acceited, 
and  is,  we  venture  to  think,  more  natural.  When  St.  Paul  says  in 
ver.  a  'the  weak  man  eateth  vegetables,'  he  does  not  mean  that 
there  is  a  special  sect  of  vegetarians  in  Rome;   but  he  takes 

»4 


40a  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS    [XIV.-ZV.  lA 

a  typical  instance  of  excessive  scrupulousness.     When  again  hi 

says  '  one  man  considers  one  day  better  than  another,'  he  does  not 
mean  that  this  sect  of  vegetarians  were  also  strict  Sabbatarians,  but 
that  the  same  scrupulousness  may  prevail  in  other  matters.  When 
he  speaks  of  6  (ppovwv  tti»  fjfifpav,  i  fi^  faOinv  he  is  not  thinking 
of  any  special  body  of  people  but  rather  of  special  types.  When 
again  in  ver.  a  i  he  says :  '  It  is  good  not  to  eat  flesh,  or  drink 
wine,  or  do  anything  in  which  my  brother  is  offended,'  he  does 
not  mean  that  these  vegetarians  and  Sabbatarians  arc  also  total 
abstainers ;  he  merely  means  '  even  the  most  extreme  act  of  self- 
denial  is  better  than  injuring  the  conscience  of  a  brother.'  He  had 
spoken  very  similarly  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians :  *  Wherefore,  if 
meat  maketh  my  brother  to  stumble,  I  will  eat  no  flesh  for  ever- 
more, that  I  make  not  my  brother  to  stumble '  (i  Cor.  viii.  13).  It 
is  not  considered  necessary  to  argue  from  these  words  that  absti- 
nence from  flesh  was  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Corinthian 
sectaries ;  nor  is  it  necessary  to  argue  in  a  similar  manner  here. 

St.  Paul  is  arguing  then,  as  always  in  the  Epistle,  from  past 
experience.  Again  and  again  difiiculties  had  arisen  owing  to 
ditierent  forms  of  scrupulousness.  There  had  been  the  difficulties 
which  had  produced  the  Apostolic  decree  ;  there  were  the  diflSculties 
in  Galatia,  '  Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  seasons,  and  years ' ; 
there  were  the  difficulties  at  Corinth.  Probably  he  had  already  in 
his  experience  come  across  instances  of  the  various  ascetic  tenden- 
cies which  are  referred  to  in  the  Colossian  and  Pastoral  Epistles. 
We  have  evidence  both  in  Jewish  and  in  heathen  writers  of  the 
wide  extent  to  which  such  practices  prevailed.  In  an  age  when 
there  is  much  religious  feeling  there  will  always  be  such  ideas. 
The  ferment  which  the  spread  of  Christianity  aroused  would  create 
them.  Hence  just  as  the  difficulties  which  he  had  experienced 
with  regard  to  Judaism  and  the  law  made  St.  Paul  work  out  and 
systematize  his  theory  of  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  personal 
righteousness,  so  here  he  is  working  out  the  proper  attitude  of  the 
Christian  towards  over-scrupulousness  and  over-conscientiousness. 
He  is  not  dealing  with  the  question  controversially,  but  examining 
it  from  all  sides. 

And  he  lays  down  certain  great  principles.  There  is,  first  of  all, 
the  fundamental  fact,  that  all  these  scruples  are  in  matters  quite 
indifferent  in  themselves.  Man  is  justified  by  '  faith ' ;  that  is 
sufficient.  But  then  all  have  not  strong,  clear-sighted  faith :  they 
do  not  really  think  such  actions  indifferent,  and  if  they  act 
against  their  conscience  their  conscience  is  injured.  Each  man 
must  act  as  he  would  do  with  the  full  consciousness  that  he  is  to 
appear  before  God's  judgement-seat.  But  there  is  another  side 
to  the  question.  By  indifference  to  external  observances  we  may 
injure   another  man's  conscience.     To  ourselves  it  is  perfectly 


XV.  14.]  APOLOGY  FOR  ADMONITIONS  405 

Indifferent  whether  we  conform  to  such  an  observance  or  not  Then 
we  must  conform  for  the  sake  of  our  weak  brother.  We  are  the 
strong.  We  are  conscious  of  our  strength.  Therefore  we  must 
yield  to  others :  not  perhaps  always,  not  in  all  circumstances,  but 
certainly  in  many  cases.  Above  all,  the  salvation  of  the  individual 
soul  and  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  community  must  be  preserved. 
Both  alike,  weak  and  strong,  must  lay  aside  differences  on  such 
unimportant  matters  for  the  sake  of  that  church  for  which  Christ 
died. 


AFOLOGY  FOB  ADMONITIONa 

XV.  14-21.  These  admonitions  of  mine  do  not  imply  that 
t  am  unacquainted  with  your  goodness  and  deep  spiritual 
knowledge.  In  writing  to  you  thus  boldly  I  am  only 
fulfilling  my  duty  as  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles ;  tJie  priest 
who  stands  before  the  altar  and  presents  to  God  the  Gentile 
Churches  (w.  14-17). 

And  this  is  the  ground  of  my  boldness.  For  I  can  boast 
of  my  spiritual  labours  and  gifts  ^  and  of  my  wide  activity  in 
preachi7ig  the  Gospel,  and  that,  not  where  others  had  done  so 
before  me,  but  where  Christ  was  not  yet  named  (w.  18-ai). 

14.  The  substance  of  the  Epistle  is  now  finished,  and  there  only 
remain  the  concluding  sections  of  greeting  and  encouragement. 
St.  Paul  begins  as  in  i.  8  with  a  reference  to  the  good  report  of  the 
church.  This  he  does  as  a  courteous  apology  for  the  warmth  of 
feeling  he  has  exhibited,  especially  in  the  last  section ;  but  a  com- 
parison with  the  Galatian  letter,  where  there  is  an  absence  of  any 
such  compliment,  shows  that  St  Paul's  words  must  be  taken  to 
have  a  very  real  and  definite  meaning. 

T^irciafiai  %i :  cf  viii.  38, '  Though  I  have  spoken  so  strongly  it 
does  not  mean  that  I  am  not  aware  of  the  spiritual  earnestness  of 
your  church.' 

Bal  afirds  ly^  vcpi  d|iSK,  8n  sal  aOrot :  notice  the  emphasis  gained 
by  the  position  of  the  words.  '  And  not  I  inquire  of  others  to  know, 
but  /  myself,  that  is,  I  that  rebuke,  that  accuse  you.'     Chrys. 

|ftc<rroi :  cf.  Rom.  L  89,  where  also  it  is  combined  with  ireirXi^/M*- 

v(£(n|«  yvAatmn'.  'our  Christian  knowledge  in  its  entirety.'    Cf. 

I  Cor.  xiii.   t  kcU  iav  (xa>  itpo({)T)Tfia9  xai  ctdc0  ra  fivar^pta  wavra  laA 
niaav  Tfjv  yvSxnv,  xai  iav  c^tt  naaap  r^v  viarw  K.r.X.    yvims  is  USed  for 

the  true  knowledge  which  consists  in  a  deep  and  comprehensive 
grasp  of  the  real  principles  of  Christianitj. 


404  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [XV.  14,  1& 

«^  ft  read  by  KBP,  Clem.-Alez.  Jo.-Daouuc.  It  It  omlttad  hj 
AC  DEFGL,  &C.:  Chry*.  Theodn. 

dyaObKruKiis :  cf.  a  Thes3.  i.  ii;  Gal.  v.  f  i ;  Eph.  v.  9;  nsed 
only  in  the  LXX,  the  N.  T.  and  writings  derived  from  them. 
Generally  it  means  'goodness'  or  'uprightness'  in  contrast  with 

KtKta,  as  in   Ps.   li.  (lii.)  5  fjynmja-at  Kcuciav  tmip  ayaduxTvyrjp :   defined 

more  accurately  the  idea  seems  to  be  that  derived  from  aya06s  of 
active  beneficence  and  goodness  of  heart.  Here  it  is  combined 
with  yvSxTis,  because  the  two  words  represent  exactly  the  qualities 
which  are  demanded  by  the  discussion  in  chap.  xiv.  St.  Paul 
demands  on  the  one  side  a  complete  grasp  of  the  CLrislian  faith 
as  a  whole,  and  on  the  other  'goodness  of  heart,'  which  may 
prevent  a  man  from  injuring  the  spiritual  life  of  his  brother  Christians 
by  disregarding  their  consciences.  Both  these  were,  St.  Paul  is 
fully  assured,  realized  in  the  Roman  community. 

Forms  in  -ffivrj  are  almost  all  late  and  mostly  confined  to  Hellenistic 
writers.  In  the  N.  T.  we  have  i\(Tj)^oavvr),  &axqnoaiivrj,  dyiataivi),  Uptxxvv^, 
fifya\aiavvri :  see  Winer,  §  xvi.  a  /9  (p.  118,  ed.  Moulton). 

SuK^ficcot  Kal  &XXi]Xous  coudeTciK.  Is  it  lajing  too  much  stress  on 
the  language  of  compliment  to  suggest  that  these  words  give  a  hint 
of  St.  Paul's  aim  in  this  Epistle?  He  has  grasped  clearly  the 
importance  of  the  central  position  of  the  Roman  Church  and  its 
moral  qualities,  and  he  realizes  the  power  that  it  will  be  for  the 
instruction  of  others  in  the  faith.  Hence  it  is  to  them  above  all 
hat  he  writes,  not  because  of  their  defects  but  of  their  merits. 

It  is  diflicQlt  to  believe  that  any  reader  will  find  an  inconsistency  between 
this  verse  and  i.  11  or  the  exhortations  of  chap.  xiT,  whatever  view  he  may 
hold  concerning  St.  Paul's  general  attitude  towards  the  Roman  Church.  It 
would  be  perfectly  natural  in  any  case  that,  after  rebuking  them  on  certain 
points  on  which  he  felt  they  needed  correction,  he  should  proceed  to  com- 
pliment them  for  the  true  knowledge  and  goodness  which  their  spiritual 
condition  exhibited.  He  could  do  so  because  it  would  imply  a  true  estimate 
of  the  state  of  the  Church,  and  it  would  prevent  any  offence  being  taken  at 
his  freedom  of  speech.  But  if  the  view  suggested  on  chap.  xiv.  and  throughout 
the  Epistle  be  correct,  and  these  special  admonitions  arise  rather  from  the 
condition  of  the  Gentile  churches  as  a  whole,  the  words  gain  even  mors 
point  '  I  am  not  finding  fault  with  you,  I  am  warning  yon  of  dangers 
you  may  incur,  and  I  warn  yon  cspecudly  owing  to  your  prominent  and 
important  position.' 

16.  ToX|iT]p<ST6por.  The  boldness  of  which  St.  Paul  accuses 
himself  is  not  in  sentiment,  but  in  manner.  It  was  dn-i  uipovs, '  in 
part  of  the  Epistle',  vi,  12  ff.,  19;  viii.  9;  xi.  17  flF. ;  xiL  3; 
xiiL  3  ff.,  13  ff.,  xiv.;  xv.  i,  have  been  suggested  as  nistances. 

i-ttava\i,ni.vf\(XK<av.      WetStein    quotes   tKaarov   vixav,   Katntp   anpifiiu 

ftSora,  o|i<ut  firavafivrjacu  fiovXofiai  Demosthenes,  Phit.  74»  7'  The 
«rt  seems  to  soften  the  expression  'suggesting  to  your  memory.' 
St  Paul  is  not  teaching  any  new  thing,  or  saying  anything  whick 


XV.  15-17.]       APOLOGY  FOR  ADMONITIONS  405 

a  properly  instructed  Christian  would  not  know,  but  putting  more 
clearly  and  definitely  the  recognized  principles  and  commands  of 
the  Gospel. 

8id  T^v  x<^pt*'  Tf)**  ZoQ^lady  f&oi.  On  St.  Paul's  Apostolic  grace 
cf.  i.  5  di*  ov  iXd^ofitp  \apuf  xai  dirooToX^i' :  xU.  3  Xcyw  yap  duk  r^r 
\apiTos  TT}S  ioSfiarjs  fioi. 

It  is  probably  preferable  to  read  To^nrjporipon  (A  B,  WH.)  for  roKfiripi' 
rtpor.  The  TR.  adds  d5t\<po't  after  lypa^a  ifuy  against  the  best  attthorities 
(N  A  B  C,  Boh.,  Grig.  Aug.  Chrys.) ;  the  position  of  the  word  varies  even  in 
MSS.  in  which  it  does  occur.  iv6  is  a  correction  of  the  TR.  for  dr6  (K  B  F 
Ja-Damasc.). 

16.  \tnoupy6v  seems  to  be  used  definitely  and  technically  as  in 
the  LXX  of  a  priest    See  esp.  a  Esdras  xx.  36  (Neh.  x.  37)  toI* 

Uptvai  Tvils  XtiTovpyovaiy  iv  oiK<f  GcoO  ^pwp.      So  in  Heb.  viii.  3  of  OUT 

Lord,  who  is  apxieptvt  and  tS>v  iyiwv  XfiTovpyoi :  see  the  note  on  i.  9. 
Generally  in  the  LXX  the  word  seems  used  of  the  Levites  as 
opposed  to  the  priests  as  in  a  Esdras  xx.  39  (Neh.  x.  40)  ml  ol 
Upt'is  Koi  ol  XuTovpyoi,  but  there  is  no  such  idea  here. 

UpoupYourra, '  being  the  sacrificing  priest  of  the  Gospel  of  God.' 
St  Paul  is  standing  at  the  altar  as  priest  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
offering  which  he  makes  is  the  Gentile  Church. 

Upovpyttv  means  (i)  to  'perform  a  sacred  function,'  hence  (a^  especially 
to  *  sacrifice ' ;  and  so  rd  UpovpyfiOtvja  means  '  the  slain  victims  ;  and  then 
(3)  to  be  a  priest,  to  be  one  who  performs  sacred  functions.  Its  con- 
■traction  is  two-fold  :  (i)  it  may  take  the  accusative  of  the  thing  sacrificed ; 
so  Bas.  im  Ps.  txv  *ai  Upovprp^am  aoi  riiv  r^;  alvlatcas  Ovaiav ;  or  (a) 
Upovpyuv  ri  may  be  put  for  hpovpySy  rivos  (tvou  (Galen,  dt  Thtriaea  lanjnf 
fio/y  UpovpySy),  so  4  Macc.  vii.  8  (v.  1.)  tovi  Upovprfovvras  t6v  y6noy :  Greg. 
Naz.  Upovpytty  ooirrjpiay  nvos  (see  Fri.  mdlec.  from  whom  this  note  is  takoi). 

^  irpo(r(f>opd.  With  this  use  of  sacrificial  language,  cf.  xii.  i,  a. 
The  sacrifices  off"ered  by  the  priest  of  the  New  Covenant  were  not 
the  dumb  animals  as  the  old  law  commanded,  but  human  beings, 
the  great  body  of  the  Gentile  Churches.  Unlike  the  old  sacrifices 
which  were  no  longer  pleasing  to  the  Lord,  these  were  acceptable 
(rurrpoo-SeKTot,  I  Pet  ii.  5).  Those  were  animals  without  spot  or 
blemish;  these  are  made  a  pure  and  acceptable  offering  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  which  dwells  in  them  (cf.  viii.  9,  11). 

For  the  construction  of  irpoacpopa  cf.  Heb.  x.  10  r.  to»  o-M/tarot*I.  X^ 

17.  Ixw  oSv  T^v  RauxTjaii'.  The  ttiv  should  be  omitted  (see  below). 
*  I  have  therefore  my  proper  pride,  and  a  feeling  of  confidence  in 
my  position,  which  arises  from  the  fact  that  I  am  a  servant  of 
Christ,  and  a  priest  of  the  Gospel  of  God.'  St  Paul  is  defending 
his  assumption  of  authority,  and  he  does  so  on  two  grounds: 
(1)  His  Apostolic  mission,  8ia  Tfjv  x^P'"  "?"  ^oBt'ia-av  iun,  as  proved 
by  his  successful  labours  (w.  18-20);  (a)  the  sphere  of  his 
labours,  the  Gentile  world,  more  especially  that  portion  of  it  in 
which  the  Gospel  had  iM>t  been  officially  preached.    The  emphasis 


4^6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [XV.  17-10. 

therefore  is  on  iv  Xp.  'I,,  and  to  irp'x:  t6v  Sf6v.     Wiih  KaCxrja-iv  cf. 
iii.  27,  I  Cor.  xv.  31;  with  the  whole  verse,  2  Cor.  x.  13  Tifxe'Lc  fie 

oix.'i  fls  TO  nfifrpa  KavxTjai'iifda  ...  17  6  fie  Kavxo^lJ-fvoi  iv  Kvpico  KavxaaSa. 

The  RV.  has  not  improved  the  text  by  adding  r-qv  before  Kavxqatv.  The 
combination  N  A  LP.  Boh.,  Arm.,  Chrys.,  Cyr.,  Theodrt.  is  stronger  than  that 
of  B  D  E  F  G  in  this  Epistle.    C  seems  uncertain. 

18.  ou  \Ap  ToXfiiio-w  K.T.X.  '  For  I  will  not  presume  to  mention 
any  works  but  those  in  which  I  was  myself  Christ's  agent  for  the 
conversion  of  Gentiles.'  St.  Paul  is  giving  his  case  for  the  assump- 
tion of  authority  {KnCxwn).  It  is  only  his  own  labour  or  rather 
works  done  through  himself  that  he  cares  to  mention.  But  the 
value  of  such  work  is  that  it  is  not  his  own  but  Christ's  working  in 
him,  and  that  it  is  among  Gentiles,  and  so  gives  him  a  right  to 
exercise  authority  over. a  Gentile  Church  like  the  Roman. 

With  7-SKixfiira>  (XACDEFGLP,  Boh.  Hard.,  etc.)  cf.  2  Cor. 
X.  12;  there  seems  to  be  a  touch  of  irony  in  its  use  here;  with 

KareipyiiaaTo   2  Cor.   xii.    12,  Rom.  vii.   13,  &C. ;   with  \6yia  Kai  epya, 

'in  speech  or  action,'  2  Cor.  x.  11. 

19.  i/  Zuvd'xei  o-r]p,eta>i'  k.t.X.  :  cf.  2  Cor.  xii.  12  to  /leV  a-rjfiua  tov 
uTtocTToXov  KaTcipyacrfr}  iv  vfiiv  iv  jracri;  vwofiitvfj ,  crij/jifiois  re  Koi  ripacri  Kai 
Svvaixecri:  Heb.  ii.  4  crvvfTTipapTvpovvTOs  rdv  Q(ov  arjixflots  re  Koi  repavi 
Kai  TTOiKi'Kms    dvvnpfat    Kai   Uvevfiaroi   'Ayiov    fifpKrp.ois    Kara   rrjv   avTOV 

6(\r]aiv:   I  Cor.  xii.  28. 

The  combination  arip.(Ta  kol  rlpara  is  that  habitually  used  throughout  the 
N.  T.  to  express  what  are  popularly  called  miracles.  Both  words  have  the 
same  denotation,  but  different  connotations,  repa's  implies  anything  mar- 
vellous or  extraordinary  in  itself,  arjueiov  represents  the  same  event,  but 
viewed  not  as  an  objectless  phenomenon  but  as  a  sign  or  token  of  the  agency 
by  which  it  is  accomplished  or  the  purpose  it  is  intended  to  fulfil.  Often 
a  third  word  Swa/xdi  is  added  which  implies  that  these  'woiks'  are  the 
exhibition  of  more  than  natural  power.  Here  St.  Paul  varies  the  expres- 
sion by  saying  that  his  work  was  accomplished  in  the  power  of  signs  and 
wonders ;  they  are  looked  upon  as  a  sign  and  external  exhibition  of  the 
Apostolic  xapis.     See  Trench,  Miracles  xci  ;  Fri.  ad  loc. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  St.  Paul  in  this  passage  assumes  that  he 
possessps  the  Apostolic  power  of  working  what  are  ordinarily  called  miracles. 
The  evidence  for  the  existence  of  miracles  in  the  Apostolic  Church  is  two- 
fold :  on  the  one  hand  the  apparently  natural  and  unobtrusive  claim  made 
by  the  Apostles  on  behalf  of  themselves  or  others  to  the  power  of  working 
miracles,  on  the  other  the  definite  historical  narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  The  two  witnesses  corroborate  one  another.  Against  them  it 
might  be  argued  that  the  standard  of  evidence  was  lax,  and  that  the 
miraculous  and  non-miraculous  were  not  sufficiently  distinguished.  But  will 
the  first  argument  hold  against  a  pergonal  assertion  ?  and  does  not  the 
narrative  of  the  Acts  make  it  clear  that  miracles  in  a  perfectly  coi  rect  sense 
of  the  word  were  definitely  intended  ? 

^i'  SofdjAei  rivcufjiaTos  'Ayio"  :  cf.  ver,  13,  and  on  the  reading  here 
see  below.  St.  Paul's  Apostolic  labours  are  a  sign  of  commission 
because  they  have  been  accompanied  by  a  manifestation  of  more 


TV.  10.]  APOLOGY  FOR  ADMONITIONS  407 

thaii  natural  gifts,  and  the  source  of  his  power  is  the  Holy  Spirit 
with  which  he  is  filled. 

This  seems  one  of  those  passages  in  which  the  valne  of  the  text  of  B 
where  it  is  not  vitiated  by  Western  influence  is  conspicuons  (cf.  iv.  1).  It 
reads  (alone  or  with  the  support  of  the  Latin  Fathers)  wfVfMTos  without 
any  addition.  K  L  P  &c.,  Orig.-lat.  Chrys.  &c.,  add  etod,  A  C  D  F  G  Boh. 
Valg.  Arm..  Ath.  &e.  read  iylov.  Both  were  corrections  of  what  seemed  an 
imfinished  expression. 

dwd  'UpoiNraX?))ft  sal  rJhX^  I^^XP^  "^^  'iXXupiRoS.  These  words 
have  caused  a  considerable  amount  of  discussion. 

I.  The  first  question  is  as  to  the  meaning  of  kCkK^. 

(i)  The  majority  of  modern  commentators  (Fri.  Gif.  Mey-W.) 
interpret  it  to  mean  the  country  round  Jerusalem,  as  if  it  were  Koi 
rev  KUKkf,  and  explain  it  to  mean  Syria  or  in  a  more  confined 
sense  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  city.  But  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that  kvkX^  in  the  instances  quoted  of  it  in  this  sense 
(Gen.  zxxv.  5 ;  xli.  48)  seems  invariably  to  have  the  article. 

(a)  It  may  be  suggested  therefore  that  it  is  better  to  take  it  as 
do  the  majority  of  the  Greek  commentators  and  the  AV.  'from 
Jerusalem  and  round  about  unto  Illyricum.'  So  Oecumenius  «v*cXw 

in  ftq  T^y  Kar   tiidtiav  686v  (v6vnr]6§s,  dWa  Kara  to   nepi$  and   tO   the 

same  effect  Chrys.  Theodrt.  Theophylact.   This  meaning  is  exactly 

supported  by  Xen.  Anab.  VII.  i.  14  xal  n6T(pa  dm  roi  Iffjov  opovs  8ioi 

9optv(a6aiy  %  avaXy  dta  ^'<nfr  i^«  Qpms,  and  substantially  by  Mark 

VL  6. 

fl.  It  has  also  been  debated  whether  the  words  '  as  far  as  lUyria ' 
include  or  exclude  that  country.  The  Greek  is  ambiguous; 
certainly  it  admits  the  exclusive  use.  p*xpt  &a\diTcrr)s  can  be  used 
clearly  as  excluding  the  sea.  As  far  as  regards  the  facts  the  narra- 
tive of  the  Acts  (ra  ptprf  (Kuva  Acts  XX.  2  ;  cf.  Tit.  iii.  12)  suggests 
that  St.  Paul  may  have  preached  in  Illyria,  but  leave  it  uncertain. 
A  perfectly  tenable  explanation  of  the  words  would  be  that  if 
Jerusalem  were  taken  as  one  limit  and  the  Eastern  boundaries 
of  Illyria  as  the  other,  St.  Paul  had  travelled  over  the  whole  of 
the  intervening  district,  and  not  merely  confined  himself  to  the 
direct  route  between  the  two  places.  Jerusalem  and  Illyria  in  fact 
represent  the  limits. 

If  this  be  the  interpretation  of  the  passage  it  is  less  important  to 
fix  the  exact  meaning  of  the  word  Illyria  as  used  here ;  but  a  passage 
in  Strabo  seems  to  suggest  the  idea  which  was  in  St.  Paul's  mind 
when  he  wrote.  Strabo,  describing  the  Egnatian  way  from  the 
Adriatic  sea-coast,  states  that  it  passes  through  a  portion  of 
Illyria  before  it  reaches  Macedonia,  and  that  the  traveller  along  it 
has  the  Illyrian  mountains  on  his  left  hand.  St.  Paul  would  have 
followed  this  road  as  far  as  Thessalonica,  and  if  pointing  Westward 
he  had  asked  the  names  of  the  mountain  region  and  of  the  peoples 


408  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS         [ZV.  10-2L 

inhabiring  it,  he  would  have  been  told  that  it  was  *Illyria/  The 
term  therefore  is  the  one  which  would  naturally  occur  to  him  as 
fitted  to  express  the  limits  of  his  journeys  to  the  West  (Strabo  viL 
7.4). 

The  word  Illyria  might  apparently  be  vied  at  this  period  in  two  senses, 
(l)  As  the  designation  of  a  Roman  province  it  might  be  used  for  what  was 
otherwise  called  Dalmatia,  the  province  on  the  Adriatic  sea-coast  north 
of  Macedonia  and  west  of  Thrace.  (3)  Ethnically  it  would  mean  the 
country  inhabited  by  lUyrians,  a  portion  of  which  wai  included  in  the  Roman 
province  of  Macedonia.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  in  Appian,  Illy  rum  I,  7; 
Jos.  Bell.  lud.  II.  xvi.  4 ;  and  the  passage  of  Strabo  quoted  above. 

ircirXtipuK^fai  t&  euayyAiOK  TOt!  XpiGrrou :  of.  Col.  i.  35  ^r  (ytv6fuf» 
fyo)  biaKovot  Kara  ttjv  olKOvofiiav  tov  Qeov  Tr)V  dodelcrdv  ftoi  de  vfias,  ir\if 

pSxrai  TOV  Xoyo>»  row  etov.  In  both  passages  the  meaning  is  to  *  fulfil,' 
'  carry  out  completely/  and  so  in  the  AV.  '  to  fully  preach.'  In 
what  sense  St.  Paul  could  say  that  he  had  done  this,  see  below. 

20.  ouTO)  Se  ({>iXoTifxoufi6i'oi'  K.T.X.  introduces  a  limitation  of  the 
statement  of  the  previous  verses.  Within  that  area  there  had  been 
places  where  he  had  not  been  eager  to  preach,  since  he  cared  only 
to  spread  the  Gospel,  not  to  compete  with  others,  ovr**  is  ex- 
plained by  what  follows.  (piKoTifiovufpov  (i  Thess.  iv.  11;  a  Cor. 
V.  9)  means  to  '  strive  eagerly,'  having  lost  apparently  in  late  Greek 
its  primary  idea  of  emulation.  See  Field,  Olium  Norv.  iii.  p.  100, 
who  quotes  Polyb.  i.  83;  Diod.  Sic.  xii.  46;  xvi.  49;  Plut.  Vit. 
Caes.  liv. 

ifojidaevi :  'so  named  as  to  be  worshipped.'  Cf.  t  Tim.  iL  19; 
Isa.  xxvi.  13;  Amos  vi.  10. 

dXXoTpioi/  OcfiE'Xioi'.  For  aXXoVptov  cf.  a  Cor.  x.  15,  16.  St.  Paul 
describes  his  work  (i  Cor.  iii.  10)  as  laying  a  'foundation  stone*: 

if    ao<poe    apx^ffUfav    BefiiXioy    (6r)Ka'   aK\os    di    fnoiKoSofitl  I     and    SO 

generally  the  Church  is  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets  (Eph.  ii.  20). 

21.  dXXd  KaOojs  yiypaiTTM.  St.  Paul  describes  the  aim  of  his 
mission  (the  limitations  of  which  he  has  just  mentioned)  in  words 
chosen  from  the  O.  T.  The  quotation  which  follows  is  taken 
verbally  from  the  LXX  of  Isa.  hi.  15,  which  differs  but  not  es- 
sentially from  the  Hebrew.  The  Prophet  describes  the  astonish- 
ment of  the  nations  and  kings  at  the  suffering  of  the  servant  of 
Jehovah.  '  That  which  hath  not  been  told  them  they  shall  see.' 
The  LXX  translates  this  '  those  to  whom  it  was  not  told  shall  see,* 
and  St.  Paul  taking  these  words  applies  them  (quite  in  accordance 
with  the  spirit  of  the  original)  to  the  extension  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  true  Servant  of  Jehovah  to  places  where  bis  name  has  not 
been  mentioned. 

Verses  19-21,  or  rather  a  portion  of  them  (fi<rrc  fit  .  .  .  dXXd),  are  still 
objectod  to  by  commentators  (as  by  Lipsins)  who  rtcognixe  th«  fntility  ol 


TV.  1»-21.]      APOLOGY  FOR  ADMONITIONS  4O9 

the  objections  to  the  chapter  u  •  whole.  In  «  former  case  (zi.  8-10)  the 
clumsiness  of  an  excision  suggested  by  Lipsins  was  noticed  and  here  he  has 
aot  been  any  happier.  He  omits  ver.  ao,  but  keeps  the  quotation  in  ver.  ai, 
yet  this  quotation  is  clearly  suggested  by  the  preceding  words  oix  ''o" 
ivofiaaer)  Xpt<rr6s.  It  would  be  strange  if  an  interpolator  were  to  make  the 
sequence  of  thought  more  coherent. 

The  general  objections  to  the  passage  seem  to  be— 

(I)  It  is  argued  that  St-  Paul  had  never  preached  in  Jerusalem,  nor  woald 
have  been  likely  to  mention  that  place  as  the  starting-point  of  his  mission  ; 
that  these  words  therefore  are  a  'concession  made  to  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians,' and  hence  that  the  chapter  is  a  result  of  the  same  conciliation  ten- 
dency which  produced  the  Acts.  Most  readers  would  probably  be  satisfied 
with  being  reminded  that  according  to  the  Acts  St.  Paul  had  preached  in 
Jerusalem  (Acts  ix.  38,  29).  But  it  may  be  also  pointed  out  that  St.  Paul 
is  merely  using  the  expression  geographically  to  define  out  the  limits  within 
which  he  had  preached  the  Gospel;  while  he  elsewhere  (Rom. xL  36)  speaks 
of  Sion  as  the  centre  from  which  the  Gospel  has  gone  forth. 

(a)  It  is  asserted  that  St.  Paul  had  never  preached  in  Ulyricum.  There 
is  some  inconsistency  in  first  objecting  to  the  language  of  this  passage 
because  it  agrees  with  that  of  the  Acts,  and  then  criticizing  it  because  it 
contains  some  statement  not  supported  by  the  same  book.  But  the  re- 
ference to  Ulyricum  has  been  explained  above.  The  passages  of  the  Acts 
quoted  clearly  leave  room  for  St.  Paul  having  preached  in  districts  inhabited 
by  lUyrians.  He  would  have  done  so  if  he  had  gone  along  the  Egnatian 
way.  But  the  words  do  not  necessarily  mean  that  he  had  been  in  lUyria, 
and  it  is  quite  possible  to  explain  them  in  the  sense  that  he  had  preached 
u  far  as  that  province  and  no  further.  In  no  case  do  they  contain  any 
statement  inconsistent  with  the  genuineness  of  the  passage. 

(3)  It  is  objected  that  St.  Paul  could  in  no  sense  ase  such  a  phrase  as 
9fir\T]pvKivai  rd  cita-yYtXior.  But  by  this  expression  he  does  not  mean  that 
he  had  preached  in  every  town  or  village,  but  only  that  everywhere  there  were 
centres  from  which  Christianity  could  spread.  His  conception  of  the  duties 
of  an  Apostle  was  that  he  should  found  churches  and  leave  to  others  to 
build  on  the  foundation  thus  laid  (i  Cor.  iii.  7,  10).  As  a  matter  of  fact 
within  the  limits  laid  down  Christianity  had  been  Tery  widely  preached. 
There  were  churches  throughout  all  Cilicia  (Acts  sv.  4a),  Galatia,  and 
Phrygia  (Gal.  i.  I  ;  Acts  xviiL  33).  The  three  years'  residence  in  Ephesus 
implied  that  that  city  was  the  centre  of  missionary  activity  extending  through- 
out all  the  province  of  Asia  (Acts  xix.  10)  even  to  places  not  visited  by 
St.  Paul  himself  (CoL  ii.  l).  Thessalonica  was  early  a  centre  of  Christian 
propaganda  (I  Thess.  L  7,  8 ;  iv.  10),  and  later  St.  Paul  again  spent  some 
time  there  (Acts  xz.  a).  The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  contains  in 
the  greeting  the  words  viiv  roU  dYioit  iroffi  rott  oZair  tv  oAp  rp  'Axcuq, 
showing  that  the  long  residence  at  Corinth  had  again  produced  a  wide 
extension  of  the  GospeL  As  far  as  the  Adriatic  cokst  St  Paul  might  well 
have  considered  that  he  had  fulfilled  his  mission  of  preaching  the  Gospel, 
and  the  great  Egnatian  road  be  had  followed  would  lead  him  straight  to 
Rome. 

(4)  A  di£Bculty  is  found  in  the  words  '  that  I  may  not  build  on  another 
man's  foundation.'  It  is  said  that  St  Paul  has  just  expressed  his  desire  to 
go  to  Rome,  that  in  fact  he  expresses  this  desire  constantly  (i.  5,  1 3  ;  xii.  3  ; 
XV.  15),  but  that  here  he  states  that  he  does  not  wish  to  build  on  another  man's 
foundation  ;  how  then  it  is  asked  could  he  wish  to  go  to  Rome  where  there 
was  already  a  church  ?  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  Christianity  had  been 
officially  or  systematically  preached  there  (Acts  xxviii.  32),  and  only  a  small 
community  was  in  existence,  which  had  grown  up  chiefly  as  composed  of 
settlers  from  other  places.  Moreover,  St  Paul  specially  says  that  it  is  foi 
the  sakr  of  matnal  grace  and  encouragement  that  he  wishes  to  go  there;  ha 


4f  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [XV.  22,  29. 

fanplkt  tb«t  he  does  Mt  wUk  I*  itej  lonfi  bal  dcaliet  t»  picM  «■  ftutlMi 
vestward  (vcr.  14). 


THS  AFOSTZiB'S  FLANS. 

ZV.  22-33.  I  have  bein  these  many  times  hindered  from 

coming  to  yoUy  although  I  have  long  eagerly  desired  it.  Now 
I  hope  I  may  accomplish  my  wish  in  the  course  of  a  journey 
to  Spain.  But  not  immediately.  I  must  first  take  to  JerU' 
salem  the  contributions  sent  thither  by  Macedonia  and 
Achaia — a  generous  gift,  and  yet  but  a  just  recompense  for 
th4  spiritual  blessings  the  Gentile  Churches  have  received 
from  the  Jews.  When  this  mission  is  accomplished  I  hope 
I  may  come  to  you  on  my  way  to  Spain  (w.  22-29). 

Meantime  I  earnestly  ask  your  prayers  for  *«y  own 
personal  safety  and  that  the  gifts  I  bear  may  be  received  by 
the  Church.  I  shall  then,  if  God  will,  come  to  you  with 
a  light  heart,  and  be  refreshed  by  your  company.  May  the 
God  of  peace  make  His  peace  to  light  upon  you  (w.  30-33). 

22.  8i4  itai.  The  reason  why  St  Paul  had  been  so  far  prevented 
from  coming  to  Rome  was  not  the  fear  that  he  might  build  on 
another  man's  foundation,  but  the  necessity  of  preaching  Christ  in 
the  districts  through  which  he  had  been  travelling ;  now  there  was 
no  region  untouched  by  his  apostolic  labours,  no  further  place  for 
action  in  those  districts.  <V<Koirro/ti)ir :  GaL  v.  7;  i  Th.  iL  18; 
I  Pet  iii.  7. 

tA  TToXXd, '  these  many  times,'  L  e.  all  the  times  when  I  thought 
of  doing  so,  or  had  an  opportunity,  as  in  the  RV. ;  not,  as  most 
commentators,  '  for  the  most  part '  (Vulg.  pUrumque).  froXXa«f, 
which  is  read  by  Lips,  with  B  D  £  F  G,  is  another  instance  otf 
Western  influence  in  B. 

23.  vw\  %\.  fiTjK^Ti  timv  Ijfav,  'seeing  that  I  have  no  longer 
opportunity  for  work  in  these  regions.'  Ton-ov,  as  in  xiL  19,  q.v. ; 
Eph.  iv.  37 ;  Heb.  xii.  17, '  opportunity,'  '  scope  for  action.'  itXt/xao-t, 
*  tracts  '  or  '  regions '  (a  Cor.  xi.  10 ;  Gal.  Lai;  often  in  Polybius). 

^mvoOiav  does  not  occur  elsewhere ;  but  inumBw  (Rom.  L  1 1 ; 
a  Cor.  V.  a;  ix.  14;  PhiL  i.  8;  ii.  a6;  i  Th.  iii.  6 ;  a  Tim.  L  4; 
James  iv.  5;  i  Pet  iL  a)  and  iffai66r\fna  (a  Cor.  viL  7,  11)  are  not 
uncommon.     On  its  signification,  'a  longing  desire,'  see  on  L  11. 

Uavwr :  a  very  favourite  word  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (ix.  as ; 
xviiL  18,  ftc).  'It  is  likely  enough  that  St  Paul's  special  interest 
In  the  Christian  community  at  Rome,  though  hardly  perhaps  his 


XV.  28,  24.]  THE  APOSTLE'S  PLANS  4II 

knowledge  of  it,  dates  from  his  acquaintance  with  Aquila  and 
Priscilla  at  Corinth.  This  was  somewhere  about  six  years  before 
the  writing  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  that  interval  would 
p)erhaps  suffice  to  justify  his  language  about  having  desired  to  visit 
them  «ri  iKaviiv  truv  (a  rather  vague  phrase,  but  not  so  strong  as 
the  an6  iroXXwi'  rrmv,  which  was  easily  substituted  for  it)'  Hort, 
Rom.<mdEph.^.  11. 

For  lwiito9ia»  8J  Ix*"'  Western  aothorities  (D  F  G)  read  ix<»,  «n  attempt 
to  correct  the  grammar  of  the  sentence.  iKavSiv,  read  by  B  C  37.  59.  71, 
Jo.-Damasc,  it  probably  right  for  woKkSiv,  which  is  snpported  by  all  otbei 
•Bthorities  and  it  read  by  R.V. 

84.  In  this  verse  the  words  iktiiroiJiiu  vphs  v/tas,  which  are  inserted 
by  the  TR.  after  Jnavlav,  must  be  omitted  on  conclusive  manuscript 
evidence,  while  yap  must  as  certainly  be  inserted  after  (XniCco. 
These  changes  make  the  sentence  an  anacolouthon,  almost  exactly 
resembling  that  in  v.  la  flF.,  and  arising  from  very  much  the  same 
causes.  St  Paul  does  not  finish  the  sentence  because  he  feels  that 
he  must  explain  what  b  the  connexion  between  his  visit  to  Spain 
and  his  desire  to  visit  Rome,  so  he  begins  the  parenthesis  tXniCa  yap. 
Then  he  feels  he  must  explain  the  reason  why  he  does  not  start  at 
once;  he  mentions  his  contemplated  visit  to  Jerusalem  and  the 
purpose  of  it  This  leads  him  so  far  away  from  the  original 
sentence  that  he  is  not  able  to  complete  it;  but  in  ver.  28  he 
resumes  the  main  argument,  and  gives  what  is  the  logical,  but  not 
the  grammatical,  apodosis  (cf.  v.  18). 

6s  &r  vopcJufmi.  The  m  av  is  temporal :  cf.  Phil.  ii.  23 ;  i  Cor. 
xL  34:  on  this  latter  passage  Evans,  in  Speaker's  Comm.  p.  328, 
writes :  *  When  I  come :  rather  according  as  I  come :  the  presence  of 
the  &v  points  to  uncertainty  of  the  time  and  of  the  event :  for  this 

use  COmp.  AeSCh.  Eutn.  33  ftavTeiofuu  yap  i>s  &v  T)y^Tai  6f6s. 

'irpoire|ji<f>6t]i'(u :  I  Cor.  xvi.  6,  11 ;  a  Cor.  L  16;  need  not  mean 
more  than  to  be  sent  forward  on  a  journey  with  prayers  and  good 
wishes.    The  best  commentary  on  this  verse  is  ch.  L  11  flf. 

Lipsius  again  strikes  out  vv.  23,  24  and  below  in  ver.  28  St*  vftaip 
tie  rrjif  Siraviav — a  most  arbitrary  and  unnecessary  proceeding. 
The  construction  of  the  passage  has  been  explained  above  and  is 
quite  in  accordance  with  St.  Paul's  style,  and  the  desire  to  pass 
fiirther  west  and  visit  Spain  is  not  in  any  way  inconsistent  with 
the  desire  to  visit  Rome.  The  existence  of  a  community  there 
did  not  at  all  preclude  him  from  visiting  the  city,  or  from 
preaching  in  it ;  but  it  would  make  it  less  necessary  for  him  to 
remain  long.  On  the  other  hand,  the  principal  argument  against 
the  genuineness  of  the  passage,  that  St  Paul  never  did  visit  Spain 
(on  which  see  below  ver.  a 8),  is  most  inconclusive ;  a  forger  would 
never  have  interpolated  a  passage  in  order  to  suggest  a  visit  to 
Spain  which  had  never  taken  place.    But  all  such  criticism  lails 


4ia  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS         [XV.  24-87 

absolutely  to  realize  the  width  and  boldness  of  St.  Paul's  schemes. 
He  must  carry  the  message  of  the  Gospel  ever  further.  Notliing 
will  stop  him  but  the  end  of  his  own  life  or  the  barrier  of  the 
ocean. 

25.  St.  Paul  now  mentions  a  further  reason  which  will  cause 
some  delay  in  his  visit  to  Rome,  and  his  missionary  journey  to 
Spain. 

SiaitOfUK  TOis  dyiois  :  cf.  9  CoT.  viii.  4  r^v  Koivavlav  r^c  huutovlat 
T^f  *U  Tovs  iylovs.  The  expression  '  ministering  to  the  saints '  has 
become  almost  a  technical  expression  in  St.  Paul  for  the  contribu- 
tions made  by  the  Gentile  Christians  to  the  Church  at  Jerusalem. 

26.  cuS^KTjo-aK  implies  that  the  contribution  was  voluntary,  and 
made  with  heartiness  and  good-will :  see  on  Rom.  x.  i  {ndoida) ; 
I  Cor.  i.  81  ;  Gal.  i.  15. 

Koivwiav:  of  a  collection  or  contribution  t  Cor.  viii  4;  iz.  13 
ink&njTi  r^r  Koivatvlas  tis  axirovs  kcu  *ts  wdvrmt  and  moumpttp  Rom 
xii.  13  rats  xp<'(i'(  ^<^''  Ayiav  Koivttvovvrts. 

itTu\o6s :  cf.  Gal.  ii.  10  fi6vov  rav  frrwx*"  t*^  ftrrjfusvtvmfuw,  Ot 
the  poor  Christians  at  Jerusalem  see  James  iL  a  ff. ;  Renan,  Ifist 
des  Origines,  &c.  vol  iv.  ch.  3.  In  Jerusalem  the  Sadducees,  who 
were  the  wealthy  aristocracy,  were  the  determined  opponents  of 
Christianity,  and  there  must  have  been  in  the  city  a  very  large 
class  of  poor  who  were  dependent  on  the  casual  employment  and 
spasmodic  alms  which  are  a  characteristic  of  a  great  religious 
centre.  The  existence  of  this  class  is  clearly  implied  in  the 
narrative  at  the  beginning  of  the  Acts  of  the  Aposdes.  There 
was  from  the  very  first  a  considerable  body  of  poor  dependent  on 
the  Church,  and  hence  the  organization  of  the  Christian  community 
with  its  lists  (i  Tim.  v.  19)  and  common  Church  fund  (d»r*  tw 
Ktuvov  Ign.  Ad  Polyc.  iv.  3)  and  officers  for  distributing  alms  (Acts 
vL  1-4)  must  have  sprung  up  very  early. 

27.  cu8<JitTjaoK  it.T.X.  St.  Paul  emphasizes  the  good-will  with 
which  this  contribution  was  made  by  repeating  the  word  *v8o(oj(roj» ; 
he  then  points  out  that  in  another  sense  it  was  only  the  repa)mient 
of  a  debt  The  Churches  of  the  Gentiles  owed  all  the  spiritual 
blessings  they  enjoyed  to  that  of  Jerusalem,  '  from  whom  is  Christ 
according  to  the  flesh,'  and  they  could  only  repay  the  debt  bj 
ministering  in  temporal  things. 

vKcupariKois  . . .  aapKiKois.     Both  are  characteristically  Pauline 

words.      I  Cor.  ix.  11   *l  fifUls  v/xli*  ra  nvtvfMTiKa  iaTrtipafxtP,  fttya  tl 

^fult  vfiStv  rii  aapKiiui  6ipi9x>iu9\  vapuxcHs  is  used  without  any  bad 
association. 

|icotvtt>vT)7av.  The  word  Koivonita,  of  which  the  meaning  u  of  coorte  '  to 
be  •  sharer  or  participator  in,'  may  be  used  either  of  the  giver  or  of  the 
receiver.  The  giver  shares  with  the  receiver  by  giving  contributions,  so  Rom. 
xii.  13  (quoted  on  ver,  36) ;  the  receiver  with  the  giver  by  receiving  contri- 
ImtioaB,  so  here.    The  aormal  coattiaction  in  the  N.  T.  it  w  here  with  the 


XV.  87, 28.]  THE  APOSTLB'S  PLANS  413 

dative :  <moc  (Heb.  il.  14)  ft  b  used  with  the  genitiT^  and  thli  ooottnictiao  fa 
commoa  in  the  O.  T.  (Lft.  on  GaL  tL  6). 

The  contributions  for  the  poor  in  Jerusalem  are  mentioned  in 
Rom.  XV.  26,  a7 ;  i  Cor.  xvi.  1-3;  a  Cor.  ix.  i  flf ;  Acts  xxiv.  17,  and 
form  the  subject  of  the  ablest  and  most  convincing  section  in 
Paley's  JIorM  Paulina*.  Without  being  in  any  way  indebted  to 
one  another,  and  each  contributing  some  new  element,  all  the 
different  accounts  fit  and  dovetail  into  one  another,  and  thus  imply 
that  they  are  all  historical.  '  For  the  singular  evidence  which  this 
passage  aflfords  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle,  and  what  is  more 
important,  as  it  has  been  impugned,  of  this  chapter  in  particular, 
«ee  Paley's  Horae  Paulituu,  chap.  iL  No.  i.'  Jowett,  ad  be,  and 
for  some  further  reff.  see  Introd.  §  4. 

28.  l-iriTcX^aas  . . .  a4>paYi(rdfi,6i'os.  St  Paul  resumes  his  argu- 
ment and  states  his  plans  after  the  digression  he  has  just  made 
on  what  lies  in  the  immediate  future.  With  mntKeaas  (a  Pauline 
word),  cf.  Phil.  i.  6;  it  was  used  especially  of  the  fulfilment  of 
religious  rites  (Heb.  ix.  6  and  in  classical  authors),  and  coupled 
with  X*iToupy^<r<u  above,  suggests  that  St.  Paul  looks  upon  these 
contributions  of  the  Gentile  communities  as  a  solemn  religious 
ofifering  and  part  of  their  tixapiarta  for  the  benefits  received. 

ai^paYicrdf&cKOs,  '  having  set  the  seal  of  authentication  on.'  The 
seal  was  used  as  an  official  mark  of  ownership :  hence  especially 
the  expression  'the  eal  of  baptism'  (a  Cor.  i.  ta ;  Eph.  i.  13; 
see  on  iv.  11).  Here  the  Apostle  implies  that  by  taking  the  con- 
tributions to  Jerusalem,  and  presenting  them  to  the  Church,  he  puts 
the  mark  on  them  (as  a  steward  would  do),  showing  that  they  are 
the  fruit  to  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  of  those  spiritual  blessings 
{wvtvuarucd)  which  through  him  had  gone  forth  to  the  Gentile 
world. 

els  TfjK  litavlaw.  It  has  been  shown  above  that  it  is  highly  prob- 
able that  St.  Paul  should  have  desired  to  visit  Spain,  and  that  therefore 
nothing  in  these  verses  throws  any  doubt  on  the  authenticity  of  the 
chapter  as  a  whole  or  of  any  portions  of  it.  A  further  question 
arises.  Was  the  journey  ever  carried  out?  Some  fresh  light  is 
perhaps  thrown  on  the  question  by  Professor  Ramsay's  book  72/ 
Church  and  the  Empire.  If  his  arguments  are  sound,  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  if  St.  Paul  was  martyred  at  Rome 
(as  tradition  seems  to  suggest)  he  must  necessarily  have  suffered 
in  what  is  ordinarily  called  the  Neronian  persecution.  He  might 
have  been  beheaded  either  in  the  later  years  of  Nero's  reign  or 
even  under  Vespasian.  So  that,  if  we  are  at  liberty  to  believe 
that  he  survived  his  first  imprisonment,  there  is  no  need  to  compress, 
as  has  been  customary,  the  later  years  of  his  missionary  activity. 

It  is  on  these  assumptions  easier  to  find  room  for  the  Spanish 
jotimey.    Have  we  evidence  for  it }    Dismissing  later  writers  wtio 


414  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS       [ZV.  28-80 

BAem  to  have  had  no  independent  evidence,  our  authorities  are 
reduced  to  two,  the  Muratorian  Fragment  on  the  Canon,  and 
Clc'rent  of  Rome.  We  cannot  lay  much  stress  on  the  former;  it 
is  possible  perhaps  that  the  writer  had  independent  knowledge,  but 
it  is  certainly  more  probable  that  he  is  merely  drawing  a  conclu- 
sion, and  not  quite  a  correct  one,  from  this  Epistle :  the  words  are 
sed  et  profeciiomm  Pauli  ah  urbe  ad  Spaniam  proficiscentit.  The 
passage  in  Clement  (§  5)  runs  as  follows :  TLavKos  inofxovrjs  Ppa^e'io* 

vr;(d(i^(i>,  iirraKis  dfcr/xa  (poptaai,  (f>vyaitvdtit,  \i6aadtlt,  XTJpv^  yfv6fuvot 
!v  T€  T.7  dvaroX.^  Koi  (t>  rfj  iva€i,  ri  ytvvaiov  rijs  •nlartms  ainov  itKios 
fXa^ep,  iiKaiocrvvTjv  ii^d^as  Skov  top  Kocrfiov  Ka\  iiri  tA  ripfia  t^s  Svatms 
f\6(M)v,  Koi  (jLaprvprfcras  eirl  rwi/  tjyovufvuv,  ovrws  dnrjWdyTf  rov  Koafiov  Koi 

tis  Tov  dyiov  T&trov  ('noiHvdrj.  This  passage  is  much  stronger,  and 
Lightfoot's  note  in  favour  of  interpreting  the  words  t6  ripiia  rfft 
iv(Tfa)i  as  meaning  Spain  is  very  weighty ;  but  is  it  quite  certain 
that  a  Jew,  as  Clement  probably  was  (according  to  Lightfoot  him- 
self), speaking  of  St.  Paul  another  Jew  would  not  look  upon  Rome 
relatively  to  Jerusalem  as  the  reppa  rijs  Sva-tas,  'the  western  limit'? 
We  in  England  might  for  example  speak  of  Athens  as  being  in  the 
Eastern  Mediterranean.  There  is  also  some  force  in  Hilgenfeld's 
argument  that  tXdav  and  fiaftrvpfia-at  should  be  taken  together.  For 
these  reasons  the  question  whether  St.  Paul  ever  visited  Spain 
must  remain  very  doubtful. 

29.  irXT)pu)iaTi :  see  on  xi.  I  a.  St.  Paul  feels  confident  that  his 
visit  to  Rome  will  result  in  a  special  gift  of  Christ's  blessing.  He 
will  confer  on  the  Church  a  xap"^Ma  irvfvuarMou,  and  will  in  his  turn 
be  comforted  by  the  mutual  faith  which  will  be  exhibited.  Cf.  L 
II,  12. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  how  strongly  these  words  make  for  the 
authenticity  and  early  date  of  this  chapter.  No  one  could  possibly 
write  in  this  manner  at  a  later  date,  knowing  the  circumstances 
under  which  St.  Paul  actually  did  visit  Rome.    See  also  ver.  3a  Im 

fV  x°P9  tk^^*'  T^pis  v/xar  dta  6(\f)paTos  Qtov  wwavajravatifuii  vfiip. 

The  TR.  read*  with  K*  L  &c.,  Vnlg.-clem.  Syrr.  Ann.,  Chrys.  Theodrt. 
tiXoyias  rov  (vayytXiov  roS  Xp,  The  words  rov  ti.  rov  should  be  omitted  on 
decisive  authority. 

80.  The  reference  to  his  visit  to  Jerusalem  reminds  St.  Paul  of 
the  dangers  and  anxieties  which  that  implies,  and  leads  him  to 
conclude  this  section  with  an  earnest  entreaty  to  the  Roman  Chris- 
tians to  join  in  prayers  on  his  behalf.  Hort  {Horn,  and  Eph. 
pp.  42-46)  points  out  how  this  tone  harmonizes  with  the  dangers 
that  the  Apostle  apprehended  (cf.  Acts  xx.  17-38,  xxi.  13,  Ac); 
'We  cannot  here  mistake  the  twofold  thoughts  of  the  Apostle's 
mind.  He  is  full  of  eager  anticipation  of  visiting  Rome  with  the 
full  blessing  of  the  accomplishment  of  that  peculiar  ministratioa 


XV.  80-82.]  THE  APOSTLE'S  PLANS  415 

But  he  is  no  less  full  of  misgivings  as  to  the  probability  of  escaping 

with  his  life '  (p.  43). 

8id  Tiis  Aydmfjs  toO  rircJfiaTot.  That  brotherly  love  which  is  one 
of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  working  in  us  (cf.  Gal.  v.  as).  That 
wt^vfta  is  personal  is  shown  by  the  parallelism  with  the  first  clause. 

vwayuviuaaBai.  '  He  breaks  off  afresh  in  an  earnest  entreaty  to 
them  to  join  him  in  an  intense  energy  of  prayer,  wrestling  as  it  were ' 
(Hort,  op.  at.  p.  43).  They  will  as  it  were  take  part  in  the  contest 
that  he  must  fight  by  praying  on  his  behalf  to  God,  for  all  prayer 
is  a  spiritual  wrestling  against  opposing  powers.  So  of  our  Lord's 
agony  in  the  garden :  Luke  xxii.  44 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  43.  Cp.  Origen 
ad  loc. :  Vix  enim  invenies,  ui  oranti  cuiquam  non  aliquid  inanis  et 
alienae  cogitationis  occurrai,  tt  intentionem,  qua  in  Deum  mens  diri- 
gitur,  declinet  ac/rangat,  atque  earn  per  ta  quat  non  compettt,  rapiat. 
Et  ideo  agon  magnus  est  orationis,  ut  obsistentibus  tnimicis,  et  ora- 
tionis  sensum  in  diver sa  rapientibus,  fixa  ad  Deum  semper  mens  stabili 
intentione  contendat,  ut  merito  possit  etiam  ipse  dicere:  ceriamen 
bonum  certavi,  cursum  consummavi. 

31.  The  Apostle's  fear  is  double.  He  fears  the  attacks  upon 
himself  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  to  whom  more  than  any  other 
Christian  teacher  he  was  an  object  of  hatred :  and  he  is  not  certain 
whether  the  peace-offering  of  the  Gentile  Churches  which  he  was 
bearing  to  Jerusalem  would  be  accepted  as  such  by  the  narrow 
Jewish  Christians  at  Jerusalem.  How  strong  the  first  feeling  was 
and  how  amply  justified  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  show  (Acts  xx.  3, 
as;  xxi.  11). 

Iq  ver.  30  iXiK^  it  omitted  by  B76,  Aeth.,  Chryt.  alone,  bot  perhapa 
correctly.  In  ver.  31  ^  iwpocpopia  for  SiOKotia,  and  if  'Itpovaak^it  for  tit  1. 
are  instances  of  Western  paraphrase  shared  by  B  (B  D  F  G). 

82.  But  the  prayer  that  the  Roman  Christians  offer  for  St.  Paul 
will  also  be  a  prayer  for  themselves.  If  his  visit  to  Jerusalem  be 
successful,  and  his  peace-offering  be  accepted,  he  will  come  to 
Rome  with  stronger  and  deeper  Christian  joy.  '  After  the  personal 
danger  and  the  ecclesiastical  crisis  of  which  the  personal  danger 
formed  a  part'  (Hort)  he  hopes  to  find  rest  in  a  community  as  yet 
untroubled  by  such  strife  and  distraction. 

auraKairai5(r<i>fiei,  'I  may  rest  and  refresh  my  spirit  with  you.' 
Only  used  here  in  this  sense  (but  later  in  Hegesippus  ap.  Eus. 
ff.  E.  IV.  xxii.  2).  Elsewhere  it  is  used  of  sleeping  together 
(Is.  xi.  6).  The  unusual  character  of  the  word  may  have  been  the 
cause  of  its  omission  in  B  and  the  alteration  in  some  Western  MSB. 
(see  below). 

There  ore  aeveral  variations  of  reading  in  this  verse : 

(i)  MAC,  Boh.  Arm.,  Orig.-Iat.  read  iKQmv  .  .  .  ^wmaimivmyMi  with 
some  variation  in  the  position  of  iKQinv  (after  Iva  K,  Boh.,  Orig.  -lat ;  aftei 
y(fi^  A  C  agreeing  in  this  with  other  authorities).    All  later  MSS.  with  tha 


4l6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS     [ZV.  82-XVL  L 

Western  gronp  read  i\0o)  and  insert  col  before  evrarawaiffwfieu.  6  U  alone  in 
having  (\0qj  and  omitting  arwavarravacj/Mt  ifuv,  but  receives  support  in  the 
reading  of  some  Western  authoiities ;  D  E  read  &va\pv^o)  fitd'  ifiSiv,  F  G  4i«- 
^X*"  A"-  ^-f  agreeing  with  most  Latin  authorities,  rtfrigerer  vobiscum. 

(a)  For  6j(i  6t\rnta.T0\  etoC  (A CLP,  Vulg.  Syrr.  Boh.  Arm.,  Orig.-lat 
Chrys.  Thdrt.),  K  Ambrst.  have  8.  9.  'Irjaov  Xptarov,  DEFG  (with  defg), 
fnld.  Xpiarov  'It]<tuv,  B  Kvpiov  'lr}(Tov.  Lightfoot  (On  afresh  Revision,  &c., 
pp.  io6ff.)  suggests  that  the  original  reading  was  6t\TjfiaTot  used  absolutely 
of  the  Divine  will:  cf.  Rom.  ii.  i8;  i  Cor.  xvi.  la.  See  also  his  note  on 
Ign.  EpA.  §  20,  Rom.  §  i  (where  some  authorities  add  tow  e*ov,  others 
domini  ,  Smyrn.  §§  i,  II.  Elsewhere  in  St  Paul  the  expression  always  it 
6i\7ina  &(ov,  except  once,  Eph.  ▼.  17  rd  OiXrjua  rot)  Kvpiov. 

83.  4  8c  eeos  TTjs  etpi^i'Tis :  cf.  ver.  5.  St.  Paul  concludes  his 
request  for  a  prayer  with  a  prayer  of  his  own  for  them.  •  Peace/ 
a  keynote  of  the  Epistle,  is  one  of  his  last  thoughts. 

A  F  G  and  some  minuscules  omit  an^^r.  On  the  importaoot  MCrilMd  <• 
tht*  word  by  some  commentators  see  the  Introdaction,  f  9. 


PEBSONAIi  GBEETUraa. 

XVI.  1-16.  I  commend  to  you  Phoebe  our  sister.  Receivi 
her  as  becometh  members  of  a  Christian  Church.  For  shi 
has  stood  by  many  others,  and  myself  c^  well  (w.  i,  a). 

Greet  Prisca  and  Aquila.  Greet  all  those  whose  names 
or  persons  I  know,  who  an  members  of  your  community 
(vv.  3-16). 

1.  aui'iaTTifii.  The  ordinary  word  for  to  '  commend,' '  introduce ' ; 
see  on  iii.  5,  a  derivative  of  which  appears  in  the  phrase  ervjrrarntoi 
iiriaTokai  (»  Cor.  iii.  I ;  for  its  use  in  the  later  ecclesiastical  writings 
see  Suicer,  Thesaurus).  These  letters  played  a  very  large  part  in 
the  organization  of  the  Church,  for  the  tie  of  hospitality  (cf.  xii.  13), 
implying  also  the  reception  to  communion,  was  the  great  bond 
which  united  the  separate  local  Churches  together,  and  some  pro- 
tection became  necessary  against  imposture. 

♦oi/BYii/.  Nothing  is  otherwise  known  of  Phoebe,  nor  can  we 
learn  anything  from  the  name.  She  was  presumably  the  bearer  of 
this  letter 

Sidicoj'oj',  •  a  deaconess.'  The  only  place  in  which  this  oflBce  is  re- 
ferred to  byname  in  the  N. T.  (for  i  Tim.  iii.  11,  v.  3 flf.  cannot  be 
quoted).  The  younger  Pliny  {Ep.  X.  xcvi.  8)  speaks  olt  mtntsirae: 
quo  magis  necessarium  credidi  ex  duabus  ancillis,  quae  mtnistroi 
dicebanlur,  quid  esttt  veri  et  per  tormtnta  quaerere.  They  do  not 
appear  elsewhere  to  be  referred  to  in  any  certain  second-century 
writing;  but  constant  reference  to  them  occurs  in  the  Aposiolit 


XVX 1,  2.J  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  417 

Constitutions,  in  the  earlier  books  under  the  name  of  fitnKovos  (ii.  86 ; 
iii.  I5)j  in  the  later  of  d«a>coVta<ra  (viii.  19,  20,  28).  Of  the  exact 
relation  of  the  'deaconess'  to  the  *  widows '  (i  Tim.  v.  3)  it  is  not 
necessary  to  speak,  as  we  have  no  suflBcient  evidence  for  so  early 
a  date ;  it  is  quite  clear  that  later  they  were  distinct  as  bodies,  and 
that  the  widows  were  considered  inferior  to  the  deaconesses  {Apost. 
Const,  iii.  7) ;  it  is  probable  however  that  the  deaconesses  were  for 
the  most  part  chosen  from  the  widows.  That  the  reference  to 
a  '  deaconess '  is  in  no  sense  an  anachronism  may  be  inferred  both 
from  the  importance  of  iuxKovia  in  the  early  Church,  which  had  quite 
clearly  made  it  necessary  for  special  male  officials  to  be  appointed, 
and  from  the  separate  and  secluded  life  of  women.  From  the  very 
beginning  of  Christianity — more  particularly  in  fact  at  the  beginning 
— there  must  have  been  a  want  felt  for  women  to  perform  for 
women  the  functions  which  the  deacons  performed  for  men. 
Illustrations  of  this  need  in  baptism,  in  visiting  the  women's 
part  of  a  house,  in  introducing  women  to  the  deacon  or  bishoj), 
may  be  found  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  (iii.  15,  &c ).  So 
much  is  clear.  An  office  in  the  Church  of  this  character,  we 
may  argue  on  h  priori  grounds,  there  must  have  been;  but  an 
order  in  the  more  ecclesiastical  sense  of  the  term  need  not  have 
existed.  tiaKovoi  is  technical,  but  need  hardly  be  more  so  than  is 
TTpwrrdrif  in  ver.  a.  (The  arguments  of  Lucht  against  the  au- 
thenticity of  portions  of  these  two  verses  are  examined  very  fully 
by  Mangold,  Zfer  Ronurbrief  und  seine  geschichtlichen  Voraussetzung. 
pp.  136  ff.) 

TTJs  cKKXtjaias  Tt\%  iv  KcYxpcnts.  Cenchreae  was  the  port  of  Corinth 
on  the  Saronic  Gulf.  During  St.  Paul's  stay  at  Corinth  that  city 
had  become  the  centre  of  missionary  activity  throughout  all  Achaia 
(cf.  a  Cor.  i.  i),  and  the  port  towards  Ephesus,  a  place  where  there 
must  have  been  many  Jews  living,  could  easily  be  a  centre  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Its  position  would  afford  particularly  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  exercise  by  Phoebe  of  the  special  duties  of  hospitality. 

2.  i\lwi  Tuf  dYiwK,  '  in  a  manner  worthy  of  the  saints,'  i.  e. '  of 
the  Church.'  Not  only  to  provide  for  her  wants,  but  to  admit  her 
to  every  spiritual  privilege  as  '  in  the  Lord.' 

trpoaxdris,  a  '  succourer '  or  *  helper ' ;  this  almost  technical 
word  is  suggested  by  vapaarrfrt.  It  is  the  feminine  form  of  -npo- 
(TTOTrfs,  used  like  the  Latin  patronus  for  the  legal  representative  of 
the  foreigner.  In  Jewish  communities  it  meant  the  legal  repre- 
sentative or  wealthy  patron :  see  Schiirer,  Die  Gemdnde-  Verfas- 
tung,8cc.,  Ins.  31:  cnOa^c  keitc  |  r^ic  ttpoctathc  |  ocioc  szhccn  |  cth  oB 
eN  6ipH  I  KOiMHCic  COY,  cf  also  C.I.  G.  5361.  We  also  find  the  word 
used  of  an  office-bearer  in  a  heathen  religious  association,  see 
Foucart,  Associations  Religieuses.  p.  202,  Ins.  20,  line  34  (=  C  /.  G. 
Ia6)  dowua^cTM  dc  6  vpoaTa,rr)t  Kvii  o  apxifpavior^s  Ktu  i  ypafifiarfvs  ko) 


41 1<  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANS  [ZVI.  2-4. 

9I  TUfiUu  Kal  oTvdiKot.  Here  the  expression  suggests  that  Phoebe 
was  a  person  of  some  wealth  and  position  who  was  thus  able 
to  act  as  patroness  of  a  small  and  struggling:  community. 

8.  ripiaicai'  Kai  'AxuXar  So  the  MSS.  here  by  preponderating 
authority  for  nptWiXAa  k.  'a.  Priscilla  is  a  diminutive  for  Prisca,  and 
both  are  Roman  names. 

In  Acts  xviii.  a  the  reading  b  'Am^Xow  . , .  col  UpUrKiXXaw  Tvraum  airoi, 
in  vcr.  18  npiaiciWa  ical  'AKvKat;  in  i  Cor.  xvi.  19  'AmvKas  ical  Upiaica  (so 
K  B  M  P,  Boh.,  but  A  C  D  E  F  G,  &c.,  Vulg.  Syrr.  npiaiciKXa) ;  in  a  Tim.  iv.  19 
npiaxav  Kal  'AKv\av  (by  preponderating  authority).  The  fact  that  Prisca  ia 
•o  often  mentioned  first  snggests  that  she  was  the  more  important  oi  the  two. 

4.  oiTH'cs  , .  .  tAt  iauTwk  rpdxriXor  k.t.X.  probably  refers  to  some 
great  danger  wliich  they  had  run  on  his  behalf.  It  may  have  been 
the  great  tumult  at  Ephesus,  although  this  was  somewhat  recent. 
If  so  the  danger  then  incurred  may  liave  been  the  reason  that  they 
had  left  that  city  and  returned  for  a  time  to  Rome.  The  special 
reference  to  the  Churches  of  the  Gentiles  perhaps  arises  from  the 
fact  that,  owing  to  their  somewhat  nomadic  life,  they  were  well 
known  to  many  Christian  Churches. 


Aquila  and  Priscilla. 

The  movements  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  have  been  considered  to  be  so 
complicated  as  to  throw  doubts  on  the  authenticity  of  this  section  of  the 
Epistle,  or  to  sugs;est  that  it  was  addressed  not  to  the  Church  at  Rome,  bat 
to  the  Church  of  Ephesus. 

P  rom  Acts  xviii.  i,  a  we  learn  that  Aquila  was  a  Jew  of  Pontus.  He  and 
bis  wife  Prisca  had  been  compelled  to  leave  Rome  in  5a  A.D.  by  the  decree 
of  Claudius.  They  retired  to  Corinth,  where  they  first  became  acquainted 
with  St.  Paul.  With  him  they  went  to  Elphesus,  where  they  remained  some 
time  ;  they  were  there  when  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  was  written, 
and  had  a  church  in  their  house  (aa-nd^trcu  ti/xar  kv  Kvpio)  voXAd  'A/cvXat 
ital  HpioKa  avv  rp  kqt'  oTkov  avruv  iKK\7]a'ta  i  Cor.  xvL  19).  This  Epistle 
was  written  probably  about  twelve  months  before  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  In  3  Tim.  iv.  19,  written  in  all  probability  at  least  eight  yean 
later,  they  appear  again  at  Ephesus. 

Now,  is  not  the  life  ascribed  to  them  too  nomadic  t  And  is  not  the 
coincidence  of  the  church  in  their  bouse  remarkable!  The  answer  is  that 
a  nomadic  life  was  the  characteristic  of  Jews  at  that  day,  and  was  certainly 
a  characteristic  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  (Lightfoot,  Biblical  Essays,  p.  299,  and 
Renan.  L*s  Apdtrts,  pp.96, 97,Zahn,5/J«««^«,p.  169).  We  know  that  although 
Aquila  was  a  Jew  of  Poutus,  yet  he  and  his  wife  lived,  within  the  space  of 
a  few  years,  at  Rome,  at  Corinth,  and  at  Ephesus.  Is  it  then  extremely 
improbable  that  they  should  travel  in  after  years,  probably  for  the  sake  of 
their  busmess  ?  And  if  it  were  so,  would  they  not  be  likely  to  make  their 
house,  wherever  they  were,  a  place  in  which  Christians  could  meet  together! 

On  h  priori  grounds  we  cannot  argue  agamst  the  possibility  of  these 
changes.  Are  there  any  positive  arguments  for  connecting  them  with  the 
Roman  Church  ?  De  Rossi,  in  the  course  of  his  archaeological  investigations^ 
has  suggested  two  traces  of  their  influence,  both  of  which  detenre  ioTesti* 
cation. 


SVI.  4.]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  419 

(i)  Amongst  the  older  charches  of  Rome  is  one  on  the  Aventine  beanng 
the  name  of  St  Prisca,  which  gives  a  title  to  one  of  the  Roman  Cardinals. 
Now  there  is  considerable  evidence  for  connecting  this  with  the  names  of 
Aqnila  and  Priscilla.  In  the  Liber  Ptmttficalis,  in  the  life  of  Leo  III 
(795-816),  it  is  described  as  the  '  titulus  Aquilae  et  Priscae'  (Duchesne, 
Lti.  Pont.  XL  p.  ao)  ;  in  the  legendary  Acts  of  St.  Prisca  (which  apparently 
date  from  the  tenth  century)  it  is  stated  that  the  body  of  St.  Prisca  was 
translated  from  the  place  on  the  Ostian  road  where  she  had  been  buried,  and 
transferred  to  the  church  of  St.  Aquila  and  Prisca  on  the  Aventine  (^Acta 
Sanctorum,  Jan.  Tom.  ii.  p.  187  et  deduxerunt  ipsam  ad  urbem  Eomam 
turn  hymnis  et  ctmticis  spiritualibus,  iuxta  Arcum  Romanum  in  ecclesia 
sanctorum  Martyrum  Aquilae  et  Priscae),  and  the  tradition  is  put  very 
clearly  in  an  inscription  apparently  of  the  tenth  century  which  fonnerly 
itood  over  the  door  of  the  church  (C  Ins.  Christ,  ii.  p.  443)  : 

Haee  domus  est  Aquilae  seu  Priscae  Virginis  Almmt 

Qu*s  lup«  Poult  tuo  art  vehis  domino 
Hie  Petre  divini  Tribuebas  fercula  vtrbi 
Sefius  hoece  lot4  smcrificans  dcminc. 

Many  Uter  testiaoniet  are  referred  to  by  De  Rossi,  bnt  they  need  not  here 
be  cited. 

For  the  theory  that  this  chnrch  is  on  the  site  of  the  honse  of  Prisca  and 
Aqnila,  De  Rossi  finds  additional  support  in  a  bronze  diploma  found  in  1 776 
in  the  garden  of  the  church  bearing  the  name  of  G.  Marius  Pudens  Cor- 
nelianns :  for  in  the  legendary  Acts  of  Pudens,  Pudenziana,  and  Praxedis, 
Priscilla  is  stated  to  have  been  the  mother  of  Pudens  {Acta  Sanct.  Mai. 
Tom.  ir.  p.  197),  and  this  implies  some  connexion  between  the  names  of 
Aqnila  and  Priscilla  and  the  family  of  Pudens. 

The  theory  is  a  plausible  one,  but  will  hardly  at  present  stand  examination. 
Id  the  first  place  the  name  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla  (or  Prisca)  is  not  the 
oldest  borne  by  the  church  ;  from  the  fourth  to  the  eighth  century  it  seems 
always  to  have  been  the  titulus  S.  Prisca4  (see  Liber  Pontificalis,  ed. 
Duchesne,  L  501,  517**),  and  although  the  origm  of  this  name  is  itself 
donbtful,  it  is  hardly  likely  that  if  the  locality  had  borne  the  name  of  Aquila 
and  Priscilla,  that  name  would  first  have  been  lost  and  then  revived.  It  is 
much  more  probable  that  the  later  name  is  an  attempt  to  connect  the  biblical 
account  with  this  spot  and  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  name  of  Prisca. 

Nor  is  the  second  piece  of  evidence  of  any  greater  weight  The  acts  of 
Pudens  and  his  daughters,  supposed  to  be  narrated  by  the  person  called 
St.  Pastor,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  Pius  the  bishop  and  addressed  his 
letters  to  Timothy,  are  clearly  legendary,  and  little  or  no  stress  can  be  laid 
on  the  mention  of  Priscilla  as  the  mother  of  Pudens.  The  object  of  the  Acta 
is  in  fact  to  invent  a  history  for  martyrs  whose  names  were  known,  and  who 
were  for  some  reason  grouped  together.  Bnt  why  were  they  thus  grouped  ? 
The  reason  probably  is  given  in  the  statement  at  the  end,  that  they  were 
buried  in  the  cemetery  of  Priscilla.  These  names  would  probably  be  found 
in  the  fourth  century  in  that  cemetery,  attached  to  graves  close  to  one 
another,  and  would  form  the  groundwork  of  the  Acta.  There  may  still  be 
lome  connexion  between  the  names,  which  may  or  may  not  be  discovered, 
bnt  there  is  not  at  present  any  historical  evidence  for  connecting  the  titulus 
St.  Priscae  with  the  Aquila  and  Priscilla  of  the  N.  T.  (see  de  Rossi,  BuJl. 
Arch.  Christ.  Ser.  i.  No.  5  (1867),  p.  45  ff.) 

(ii)  A  second  line  of  argument  seems  more  fruitful.  The  explorations  of 
De  Rossi  in  the  Coemeteiium  Priscillae,  outside  the  Porta  Salaria,  have 
resulted  in  the  discovery  that  as  the  Coemeterium  Domitillae  starts  from 
a  burying-place  of  Domitilla  and  her  family,  so  that  of  Priscilla  originates  in 
the  burying-place  of  Acilius  Glabrio  and  other  members  of  the  Acilian  gens. 
This  seems  to  corroborate  the  statement  of  Dio  Cassius  (Ixvii.  14)  that  the 

B  e  a 


490  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XVI.  4,  & 

Acilias  Glabrio  who  was  consul  with  Trajan  in  A.  D.  91  was  a  Christian  and 
died  as  such,  and  implies  that  Christianity  had  penetrated  into  this  as  into 
other  leading  Roman  families.  Now  the  connexion  with  the  subject  immediately 
before  us  is  as  follows.  The  same  researches  have  shown  that  a  name  of 
the  females  of  the  Acilian  gens  is  PrisciUa  or  Prisca.  For  instance,  in  one 
inscription  wc  read : 

tt*  ACIUDS  T 

C.  V. 

rusciixA..c 

Aqnila  was  a  Jew  of  Pootns :  how  then  does  it  happen  that  hit  wife,  if  not 
he  himself,  bore  a  Roman  name?  The  answer  seems  to  be  suggested  by 
these  discoveries.  They  were  freedmen  of  a  member  of  the  Acilian  gens, 
•s  Clemens  the  Roman  bishop  was  very  probably  the  freedman  of  Flavins 
Clemens.  The  name  Prisca  or  PrisciUa  would  naturally  come  to  an  ad- 
herent of  the  family.  The  origin  of  the  name  Aqnila  is  more  doubtful,  but 
it  too  mis^ht  be  borne  by  a  Roman  freedman.  If  this  suggestion  be  correct, 
then  both  the  names  of  these  two  Roman  Christians  and  the  existence  of 
Christianity  in  a  leading  Roman  family  are  explained. 

Two  other  inscriptions  may  be  quoted,  as  perhaps  of  interest.  The  fint 
!•  clearly  Christian : 

AQUIUAK  PRISCAB  IN   PACS 


The  second  C.  I.  L.vi.  1 2273  may  be  to.  The  term  Rmtitm  mig^  suggest 
tlut  it  is  but  also  might  be  Mithraic : 

D.  M. 

AQUILIA  •   RENATA 

QVAE  .  T  .  A  •  N  .  . . 

8S  •  VIVA  .  POSVIT  .   SIM 

CVRANTB   .   AQVILIO  •   IVSTO 

ALVMNO   .    ET   •   AQVIUO 

FRISCO    •   FRATRE 

The  ailment  is  not  demonstrative,  but  seems  to  make  the  retun  ci 

Aquila  and  PrisciUa  to  Rome,  and  their  permanent  connexion  with  the 
Roman  Church,  probable.  See  De  Rossi,  Bull.  Arch.  Christ.  Ser.  iv. 
No.  6  (188S-9),  p.  129  Aquila  e  Prisca  et  gli  Acilii  Glabrioni. 

Dr.  Hort  [^Rom  and  Eph.  pp.  12-14),  following  a  suggestion  made  by 
Dr.  Plumptre  {Biblical  Studies,  p.  417),  points  out  that  it  is  a  curious  fact 
that  in  four  out  of  the  six  places  in  which  the  names  occur  that  of  the  wife  is 
the  first  mentioned.  He  connects  the  name  with  the  cemetery  of  St.  Prisca, 
and  suggests  that  Prisca  was  herself  a  member  of  some  distinguished  Roman 
family.  He  points  out  that  only  Aquila  is  called  a  Jew  from  Pontus,  not 
his  wife.  There  is  nothing  inconsistent  in  this  theory  with  that  of  the 
previous  argument ;  and  if  it  be  true  much  is  explained.  It  may  however  be 
suggested  that  for  a  noble  Roman  lady  to  travel  about  with  a  Jewish  husband 
engaged  in  mercantile  or  even  artisan  work  is  hardly  probable  ;  and  that  the 
theory  which  sees  in  them  freed  members  of  a  great  household  is  perhaps 
the  most  probable. 

6.  Ktti  y^v  icaT*  otKor  aArwr  ^KKXtio-iaf.  There  is  no  decisive 
evidence  until  the  third  century  of  the  existence  of  special  buildings 
used  for  churches.  The  references  seem  all  to  be  to  places  in 
private  houses,  sometimes  very  probably  houses  of  a  large  size.  In 
the  N.T.  we  have  first  of  all  (Acts  xii.  12)  the  house  of  Mary,  th« 
mother  of  John,  where  many  were  collected  together  and  praying 
Col.  iv.  15  dawaaaa6*   rovv  4p  Aaodixctf  mdf\<Povs,  Ka\  Nt<fi^r,  ml  r^i 


irVI.  6.]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  491 

tar  eiUov  airrmif  tKiekriaiap  I  Philemon  t  Koi  rg  tear*  otfcdr  <rov  cntXi/irtfi : 
besides  i  Cor.  xvi,  19.  At  a  later  date  we  have  Clem.  Recog.  x.  71 
Theophilus,  domus  suae  ingentem  basilicam  ecclesiae  nomine  consecraret : 
De  Rossi,  Roma  Soft.  i.  p.  aop  Collegium  quod  est  in  domo  Sergio* 
Paulinae.  So  in  Rome  several  of  the  oldest  churches  appear  to 
nave  been  built  on  the  sites  of  houses  used  for  Christian  worship. 
So  perhaps  San  Clemente  is  on  the  site  of  the  house  of  T.  Flavius 
Clemens  the  consul  (see  Lightfoot,  Clement,  p.  94). 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  Church  was  the  meeting- 
place  of  all  the  Roman  Christians ;  similar  bodies  seem  to  be 
implied  in  w.  14, 15.  We  may  compare  Ada  lustini Marty ris  §  2 
(Ruinart)  where  however  the  speaker  is  of  course  intentionally 
vague :  Quaesivit  Prae/ectus,  quern  in  locum  Christiant  convenirent. 
Cui  respondit  lustinus,  eo  unumquemque  convenire  quo  vellet  ac  posset. 
An,  inquit,  existimas  omnes  nos  in  eumdem  locum  convenire  solitos  ? 
Minime  res  ita  se  hahet .  .  .  Tunc  prae/ectus :  Age,  inquit,  dicas, 
quem  in  locum  conveniatis,  et  discipulos  tuos  congreges.  Respondit 
lustinus  :  Ego  prope  domum  Martini  cuiusdam,  ad  balruum  cogno- 
mento  Timiotinum,  hactenus  mansi. 

'Eiraiceros.  Of  him  nothing  is  known :  the  name  is  not  an  un- 
common one  and  occurs  in  inscriptions  from  Asia  Minor,  C.  I.  G. 
2953  (from  Ephesus),  3903  (from  Phrygia).  The  following  in- 
scription from  Rome  is  interesting,  C.  I.L.  vi.  1 7 1 7 1  Dis  •  mam  | 

EPAENETI  {sic)  \  EPAENETI  .  F  |  EPHESIO  |  T  •  MVNIVS  |  PRI3- 
CIANVS  I  AMICO  SVO. 

dirapxT)  TTJs  *A(Tias :  i.  e.  one  of  the  first  converts  made  in  the 
Roman  province  of  Asia :  cp.  i  Cor.  xvi.  1 5  dihart  ttjv  oiKiap  2Tf4iava, 

OTi  iariv  dirap)(rj  ttjs  'A;(fu'aj,  Koi  fit  diaKoviav  Tois  iyiois  era^av  iavrovs. 

On  the  importance  of  first  converts  see  Clem.  Rom.  §  xlii  Kara  x^pas 
ovv  Koi  iroXcit  Kripva<rovTts  KaOiaravow  rht  dnapxas  avriv,  boKifMaawret  t^ 
nvfVftan,  tts  fin<TK6rmn  Koi  Hiaicovovt  tS>p  (uWovtup  tturrfidv. 

This  name  caused  great  difficulty  to  Renan,  '  What !  had  all  the 
Chiu-ch  of  Ephesus  assembled  at  Rome ?'  'AH'  when  analyzed  is 
found  to  mean  three  persons  of  whom  two  had  been  residents  at 
Rome,  and  the  third  may  have  been  a  native  of  Ephesus  but  is 
only  said  to  have  belonged  to  the  province  of  Asia  (cf.  Lightfoot, 
Biblical  Essays,  p.  301).  How  probable  it  was  that  there  should 
be  foreigners  in  Rome  attached  to  Christianity  may  be  illustrated 
from  the  Acts  of  Justin  which  were  quoted  in  the  note  on  an 
earlier  portion  of  the  verse.  These  give  an  account  of  the 
martyrdom  of  seven  persons,  Justin  himself,  Charito,  Charitana, 
Euelpistus,  Hierax,  Liberianus,  and  Paeon.  Of  these  Justin  we 
know  was  a  native  of  Samaria,  and  had  probably  come  to  Rome 
from  Ephesus,  Euelpistus  who  was  a  slave  of  the  Emperor  was 
a  native  of  Cappadocia,  and  Hierax  wag  of  lamium  in  Phrygia 
This  was  about  100  years  later. 


4aa  EPISTLE  TO  THE   ROMANg  [ZVl.  I^-T 

'Arlea  it  fnpported  by  preponderating  anthoiity  (KABCDFG,  Vulg. 
Boh.  Ann.  Aeth.,  Orig.-Iat.  Jo.'Damasc.  Ambrat)  againit  'Axatas  (LP  &&, 
Syrr.,  Chrys.  Theodrt.)- 

For  the  idea  of  illnstratinp  this  chapter  horn  inscriptions  we  are  of  coarse 
indebted  to  bishop  Lightfoot  s  able  article  on  Caesar's  household  {PhilippianSf 
p.  169^.  Since  that  paper  was  written,  the  appearance  of  a  portion  of  vol.  vL 
of  the  Corpus  of  Latin  Inscriptions,  that,  namely,  containing  the  inscriptions 
of  the  city  of  Rome,  has  both  provided  as  with  more  extensive  material  and 
also  placed  it  in  a  more  convenient  form  for  reference.  We  have  therefore 
gone  over  the  ground  again,  and  either  added  new  illustrations  or  given 
references  to  the  Latin  Corpus  for  inscriptions  quoted  by  Lightfoot  from 
older  collections.  Where  we  have  not  been  able  to  identify  these  we  have 
not,  except  in  a  few  cases,  thought  it  necessary  to  repeat  his  references. 
A  large  number  of  these  names  are  found  in  Columbaria  containing  th* 
monuments  and  ashes  of  members  of  the  imperial  household  during  the  first 
century :  these  special  collections  are  kept  together  in  the  Corpus  (vi.  3926- 
8397)-  There  is  also  a  very  large  section  devoted  to  other  names  belong- 
ing to  the  eUmus  Augusti  (vi.  8398-9101).  A  complete  use  of  these 
materials  will  not  be  possible  until  the  publication  of  the  Indices  to  vol.  ▼». 
For  a  discussion  of  the  general  bearing  of  these  references,  see  Introduction, 

6.  Mapiac  (which  is  the  correct  reading)  may  like  Mapta^  be 
Jewish,  but  it  may  also  be  Roman.  In  favour  of  the  latter  alter- 
native in  this  place  it  may  be  noticed  that  apparently  in  other  cases 
where  St.  Paul  is  referring  to  Jews  he  distinguishes  them  by  calling 
them  his  kinsmen  (see  on  ver.  7).  The  following  inscription  from 
Rome  unites  two  names  in  this  list,  C.l.L.  vi.  22223  D'M'j 
MARIAE  I  AMPLIATAE  ctt. ;  the  next  inscription  is  from  the  house- 
hold, ib.  4394  MARIAE  •  M  •  L  •  XANTHE  |  NYMPHE  •  FEC  •  DE  •  SVO. 

t|tis  iroXXd  ^KOTriaacK  cis  u^a$.  This  note  is  added,  not  for  the 
sake  of  the  Roman  Church,  but  a«  words  of  praise  for  Maria 
herself. 

Mapi'av  is  read  by  A  B  C  P,  Boh.  Arm. ;  Mapta>4  by  K  D  E  F  G  L,  &c.,  Chrys. 

The  evidence  for  tU  vfidt,  which  is  a  difficult  reading,  is  preponderating 
(NABCP,  Syrr.  Boh.),  and  it  is  practically  supported  by  the  Western 
group  (D  £  F  G,  Vulg.),  which  have  h  ifur.  The  correction  «Is  ^fta$  is  read 
by  L,  Chrys.  and  later  aathorities. 

7.  'Av%p6viKov:  a  Greek  name  found  among  members  of  the 
imperial  household.  The  following  inscription  contains  the  names 
of  two  persons  mentioned  in  this  Epistle,  both  members  of  the 
household,  C.I.  L.  vi.  5326  Dis  •  manibvs  |  c  jvlivs  •  hermes  I 

VIX  •  ANN  •  XXXIII  •  M  •  V  I  DIEB  •  XIII   |  C  •  IVLIVS  •  ANDRONICVS  j 
CONLIBERTVS  •  FEC  |  BENE  •  MERENTI  •  DE  •  SE  :    See  alsO  5325  and 

11626  where  it  is  the  name  of  a  slave. 

'looi'iai' :  there  is  i^ome  doubt  as  to  whether  this  name  is  mas- 
culine, lovviai  or  'lovwa?,  a  contraction  of  Junianus,  or  feminine 
Junia.  Junia  is  of  course  a  common  Roman  name,  and  in  that 
case  the  two  would  probably  be  husband  and  wife ;  Junias  on  the 
other  hand  is  less  usual  as  a  man's  name,  but  seems  to  re- 
present a  form  of  contraction  common  in  this  list,  as  Patrobaa 


<VI.7.]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  4*$ 

Hermas,  Olympas.     If,  as  is  probable,  Andronicus  and  Junias  are 

included  among  the  Apostles  (see  below)  then  it  is  more  probable 
that  the  name  is  masculine,  although  Chrysostom  does  not  appear 
to  consider  the  idea  of  a  female  apostle  impossible:  'And  indeed 
to  be  apostles  at  all  is  a  great  thing.  But  to  be  even  amongst 
these  of  note,  just  consider  what  a  great  encomium  this  is  I  But 
they  were  of  note  owing  to  their  works,  to  their  achievements. 
Oh  1  how  great  is  the  devotion  of  this  woman,  that  she  should  be 
even  counted  worthy  of  the  appellation  of  apostle  I ' 

Tois  oruYYCKCis  |iou.  St.  Paul  almost  certainly  means  by  '  kinsmen,' 
fellow-countrymen,  and  not  relations.  The  word  is  used  in  this 
sense  in  ix.  3,  and  it  would  be  most  improbable  that  there  should 
be  so  many  relations  of  St.  Paul  amongst  the  members  of  a  distant 
Church  (w.  7,  11)  and  also  in  Macedonia  (ver.  ai);  whereas  it  is 
specially  significant  and  in  accordance  with  the  whole  drift  of  the 
Epistle  that  he  should  specially  mention  as  his  kinsmen  those 
members  of  a  Gentile  Church  who  were  Jews. 

Kal  auraixiiaXtSrous  |*ou.  Probably  to  be  taken  literally.  Al- 
though St  Paul  had  not  so  far  suffered  any  long  imprisonment,  he 
had  certainly  often  been  imprisoned  for  a  short  time  as  at  Philippi, 
s  Cor.  zL  a3  iw  <f>v\aKais  itfpuTfTorripms ;  Clem.  Rom.  ad  Cor.  v 
iKToKii  dtv/ia  <f>opftras.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  word  should 
mean  that  Andronicus  and  Junias  had  suffered  at  the  same  time  as 
St.  Paul ;  he  might  quite  well  name  them  fellow-prisoners  if  they 
had  hke  him  been  imprisoned  for  Christ's  sake.  Metaphorical 
explanations  of  the  words  are  too  far-fetched  to  be  probable. 

omi'^s  fiffir  4-iriaT]fioi  iv  Tois  diroirroXois  may  mean  either  (i) 
well  known  to  the  Apostolic  body,  or  (2)  distinguished  as  Apostles. 
In  favour  of  the  latter  interpretation,  which  is  probably  correct,  are 
the  following  arguments,  (i)  The  passage  was  apparently  so 
taken  by  all  patristic  commentators,  (ii)  It  is  in  accordance  with 
the  meaning  of  the  words,  iniarinoi,  lit. '  stamped,'  '  marked,'  would 
be  used  of  those  who  were  selected  from  the  Apostolic  body  as 
'distinguished,'  not  of  those  known  to  the  Apostolic  body,  or 
looked  upon  by  the  Apostles  as  illustrious ;  it  may  be  translated 
'those  of  mark  among  the  Apostles.'  (iii)  It  is  in  accordance  with 
the  wider  use  of  the  term  ajrocrroXof.  Bp.  Lightfoot  pointed  out 
(Gala/tans,  p.  93)  that  this  word  was  clearly  used  both  in  a  narrow 
sense  of '  the  twelve  '  and  also  in  a  wider  sense  which  would  include 
many  others.  His  views  have  been  corroborated  and  strengthened 
by  the  publication  of  the  Didache.  The  existence  of  these  'Apostles,* 
itinerant  Christian  Evangelists,  in  Rome  will  suggest  perhaps  one 
of  the  methods  by  which  the  city  had  been  evangelized. 

ot  Kai  irpo  Ifikou  '^v^ovo.oy.v  kv  Xpiaru.  Andronicus  and  Junias  had 
been  converted  before  St  Paul :  they  therefore  belonged  to  the 
earliest  days  of  the  Christian  community ;  perhaps  even  they  were 


434  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [XVL  7,  & 

jf  those  who  during  the  dispersion  after  the  death  of  Stephen 
began  almost  immediately  to  spread  the  word  in  Cyprus  and  Syria 

Acts  xi.  19).  As  Dr.  Weymouth  points  out  {On  tht  Rendering  tn/« 
English  of  the  Greek  Aorist  and  Perfect,  p.  s6)  the  perfect  should 

icre  be  translated  '  were.' 

'It  it  ntterly  amazing,'  he  writes,  'that  in  Rom.  zri.  1  A  mX  w/4  IfioS 

•■^Vf6va<jiv  \v  Xp.  is  rendered  in  the  R V.  "  who  also  have  been  in  Christ  befort 
me."  The  English  idiom  is  here  simply  outraged.  What  officer  in  oar 
Navy  or  Army  would  not  stare  at  the  ^dp0apos  who  should  say  of  a  senior 
officer,  "  He  has  been  in  the  Service  before  me "  ?  "  He  was  in  the  Navy 
before  me  "  is  the  only  correct  English  form.  .  . .  The  English  mind  fastens 
on  the  idea  of  time  defined  by  "  before  me,"  tmd  therefore  uses  the  simple 
PasL  .  .  .  The  Greek  Perfect  is  correctly  employed,  because  it  is  intended  to 
convey,  and  does  convey,  the  idea  that  they  are  still  in  Christ,  while  the 
English  "  have  been  "  suggests  precisely  the  contrary.' 

8.  'AfiirXiaTos  is  the  more  correct  reading  for  the  abbreviated 
orm  *A/x7rXtaj  which  occurs  in  the  TR.  This  is  a  common 
Koman  slave  name,  and  as  such  occurs  in  inscriptions  of  the  imperial 
household.    C.I.L.  vi.  4899  ampliatvs  |  restitvto  •  fratri| 

3VO  •  FECIT  •   MERENTl  :     5154    C'  VIBIVS  •  FIRMVS  •  C  |  VIBIO  • 

AMPLIATO  I  PATRONO  •  svo,  &c.,  besides  inscriptions  quoted  by  Lft 
But  there  is  considerable  evidence  for  connecting  this  name  more 
closely  with  the  Christian  community  in  Rome.  In  the  cemetery 
of  Domitilla,  now  undoubtedly  recognized  as  one  of  the  earliest  of 
Christian  catacombs,  is  a  chamber  now  known  by  the  name  of 
'Ampliatus'  owing  to  an  inscription  which  it  contains.  This 
chamber  is  very  early :  pre-Christian  in  character  if  not  in  origin. 
The  cell  over  which  the  name  of  Ampliatus  is  inscribed  is  a  later 
inseiiion,  which,  from  the  style  of  its  ornament,  is  ascribed  to  th« 
end  of  the  first  or  beginning  of  the  second  century.  The  inscription 
is  in  bold,  well-formed  letters  of  the  same  date.  Not  far  off  is  another 
inscription,  not  earlier  than  the  cud  of  the  second  century,  to 
members  of  apparently  the  same  family.     The  two  inscriptions  are 

AMPLIAT[i]  and  AVRELIAE  •  BONIFATIAE  I  CONIVGI  •  INCOM- 
PARABILl  I  VERAE  CASTITATIS  FEMINAE  |  QVAE  •  VIXIT  •  ANN  • 
XXV  •  M  •  II  I  DIEB  •  nil   •   HOR  •  VI  I  AVREL  •  AMPLIATVS   CVM  | 

GORDiANO  •  FiLio.  The  boldness  of  the  lettering  in  the  first 
inscription  is  striking.  The  personal  name  without  any  other 
distinction  suggests  a  slave.  Why  then  should  any  one  in  these 
circumstances  receive  the  honour  of  an  elaborately  painted  tomb  ? 
The  most  plausible  exj^lanation  is  that  he  was  for  some  reason 
very  prominent  in  the  earliest  Roman  Church.  The  later  inscription 
clearly  suggests  that  there  was  a  Christian  family  bearing  this 
name ;  and  the  connexion  with  Domitilla  seems  to  show  that  here 
we  have  the  name  of  a  slave  or  freedman  through  whom  Christianity 
had  penetralea  into  a  second  great  Roman  household.  See  de 
Rossi,  Bull.  Arch.  Christ.   Ser,  iii.   vol.   6  (1881),  pp.  57-74  J 


PERSONAL    GREETINGS  425 

AtJienaeicm  March  4,  1884,  p.  289;  the  inscription  is  just  re- 
ferred to  by  Lightfoot,  Clement,  i.  p.  39. 

0.  Oup^ai'^ :  a  common  Roman  slave  name  found  among 
members  of  the  household,  C.  I,  L.  vi.  4237  (quoted  by  Lft.  from 

Murat.  920.   l)  VRBANVS  •  LYDES  •  AVG  •  L  •  DISPENS  |  INMVNIS  • 
DAT  •  HERMAE  •  FRATRI  •  ET  |  CILICAE  •  PATRI  :    cf.  5604,  5605, 

and  others,  quoted  by  Lft.  (Grut.  p.  589.  10,  p.  1070.  i). 

tSk  awi^^hv  tJ(iwi'.  Where  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  persona! 
friends  he  uses  the  singular  toi/  ayajr/^rov  \i.ov'.  here  he  uses  the 
plural  because  Urbanus  was  a  fellow-worker  with  all  those  who 
worked  for  Christ 

ZrdxuK :  a  rare  Greek  name,  but  found  among  members  of  the 
imperial  household :  C.  1.  L.  ri.  8607  d.  m.  |  m.  vlpio  •  avg  •  l  | 

EROTI    I    AB   •    EPISTVLIS     •    GRAECIS    |    EPAPHRODITVS    |    ET    • 
STACHY8  I  CAESAR  •  R  •  SER  |  FRATRI  •  KARISSIMO  •  ET  |  CLAVDIA 

•  FORMIANA  I  FECERVNT :  cf  also  inscriptions  quoted  by  LfL 

10.  'AireXX^K.  Again  a  name  borne  by  members  of  the  house- 
hold and  by  Jews:  amongst  others  by  the  famous  tragic  actor. 
See  the  instance  quoted  by  Lft.  and  cf.  Hor.  Sat.  I.  v.  100  Credai 
ludaeut  Apella,  non  ego. 

tAk  S<$Ki|jior:  cf.  i  Cor.  zi.  19;  s  Cor.  x.  18 ;  xiii.  7.  One  who 
has  shown  himself  an  approved  Christian. 

ToOs  ^K  Twr  'AptoTo^ouXow.  The  explanation  of  this  name  given 
by  Lft.  bears  all  the  marks  of  probability.  The  younger  Aristo- 
bulus  was  a  grandson  of  Herod  the  Great,  who  apparently  lived 
and  died  in  Rome  in  a  private  station  (Jos.  Bell.  lud.  IL  xi.  6 ; 
Antiq.  XX.  i.  2);  he  was  a  friend  and  adherent  of  the  Emperor 
Claudius.  His  household  would  naturally  be  oi  'Apktto^ovXov,  and 
would  presumably  contain  a  considerable  number  of  Jews  and 
other  orientals,  and  consequently  of  Christians.  If,  as  is  probable, 
Aristobulus  was  himself  dead  by  this  time,  his  household  would 
probably  have  become  united  with  the  imperial  household.  It 
would,  however,  have  continued  to  bear  his  name,  just  as  we  find 
servants  of  Livia's  household  who  had  come  from  that  of  Maecenas 
called  Maecenatiani  {C.I.  L.  vi.  4016,  4032), those  from  the  house- 
hold of  Amyntas,  Amyntiani  (4035,  cf  8738):  so  also  Agrippiani, 
Germaniciani.  We  might  in  the  same  way  have  Aristobuliani  (cf. 
Lft.  Phil.  pp.  172,  3;. 

11.  'HpoSiui^a  Toc  avy^ivr^  |&o».  A  mention  of  the  household  of 
Aristobulus  is  followed  by  a  name  which  at  once  suggests  the 
Herod  family,  and  is  specially  stated  to  have  been  that  of  a  Jew. 
This  seems  to  corroborate  the  argument  of  the  preceding  note. 

Toiis  cK  rStv  NapKiaaou,  '  the  household  of  Narcissus,'  '  Narcis- 
siani.'  The  Narcissus  in  question  was  very  possibly  the  well- 
known  freedman  of  that  name,  who  had  been  put  to  death  by 
Agrippina  shortly  after  the  accession  of  Nero  some  three  or  foui 


4l6  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS        [XVI.  U-IM. 

years  before  (Tac  Attn.  ziiL  ■ ;   Dio  Cass.  Ix.  34).     His  slaves 

would  then  in  all  probability  become  the  property  of  the  Emperor, 
and  would  help  to  swell  the  imperial  household.  The  name  is 
common,  especially  among  slaves  and  freedmen,  cf.  C.  I.  L.  vi.  41 13 
(in  the  household  of  Livia),  4346,  5306  HELicONis  NARCISSI  | 
AVGVSTiANi  I  :  22875  NARCissvs  •  AVC  •  LIB.  Lft.  quotes  also 
the  two  names  Ti.  Claudius  Narcissus  (see  below),  Ti.  lulius  Nar- 
cissus from  IVIuratori,  and  also  the  form  Narcissianus,  ti  •  clavdio  • 
sp  •  F  •  narcissiano  (Murat,  p.  11 50.  4).  The  following  inscrip- 
lion   belongs  to  a  somewhat  later  date  :   C.I.  L.  vi.  9035  D.  M.  | 

T  •  FLAVIVS  •  AVG  •  LIB  |  NARCISSVS  •  FECIT  •  SIBI  |  ET  •  COELIAE  • 

SP  •  FiLiAE  I  lERiAE  •  coNiVGi  •  SVAE  .  .  .  ,  and  lower  down  T 

FLAVIVS  •  AVG  •  LIB  •  FIRMVS  •  NARCISSIANVS  |  RELATOR  •  AVC- 

TiONVM  •  MONVMENTVM  *  REFECIT.  See  also  9035  «.  (Lightfoo^ 
Phil.^.  173.) 

Dr.  Plnmptre  {Biblical  Studies,  p.  418)  refen  to  the  following  bterestiiig 
inscription.  It  may  be  found  in  C.  I.  L.  v.  154*  being  reputed  to  have  come 
from   Ferrara.     D.  M.  |  clavdiae  |  dicakosynae  |  ti  •  clavdivs  |  nar- 

CISSVS  I  LIB.  AEID.  COIV  |  PIENTISSIMAE  |  ET   FRVGALISSI  |  B.  M.     Tiberlot 

Claudius  sugt^ests  the  first  century,  but  the  genuineness  of  the  Ins.  ia  not 
sufficiently  attested.  The  editor  of  the  fifth  volume  of  the  Corpus  writes  : 
Testimonia  auciorum  aut  incerioritm  .  .  .  aui  fraudulentorum  dt  loco  cum 
parum  defendant  titulum  eum  exclusi,  quamquam  fieri  potest  ut  sU 
genuinus  nee  multum  corruptus.  The  name  Dicaeosyne  is  curious  but  ia 
found  elsewhere  C.  I.  L.  iii.  2391 ;  vi  25866  :  z.  649.  There  is  nothing  du- 
tinctively  Christian  about  it 

12.  Tpu4>oii'o>'  KOI  TpotJjaJCTOK  are  generally  supposed  to  have  been 
two   sisters.      Amongst   inscriptions   of  the   household   we   have 

4866  D.  M.  I  VARIA  •  TRYPHOSA  |  PATRONA  •  ET  |  M.  EPPIVS  • 
CLEMENS  I  :  5035  D.  M.  |  TRYPHAENA  |  VALERIA  •  TRYPHAENA 
I  MATRI  •  B  •  M  •  F  •  ET  I  VALERIUS   •   FVTIANVS    (quoted   by  Lft. 

from  Ace.  di  Archeol.  xi.  p.  375):  5343  telesphorvs  •  ET  •  TRY- 
PHAENA,  5774,  6054  and  other  inscriptions  quoted  by  Lft,  Atten- 
tion is  drawn  to  the  contrast  between  the  names  which  imply 
•  delicate,'  '  dainty,'  and  their  labours  in  the  Lord. 

The  name  Tryphaena  has  some  interest  in  the  early  history  of  the  Church 
as  being  that  of  the  queen  who  plays  such  a  prominent  part  in  the  ttoiy  ol 
Paul  and  Theda,  and  who  is  knows  to  have  been  a  real  character. 

riepaiSo.    The  name  appears  as  that  of  a  freedwoman,  C.  I.  L.  vL 

23959    DIS  ■  MANIB  I   PER  •  SIDI  •  L  •  VED  |  VS  •  MITHRES  |  VXORI. 

It  does  not  appear  among  the  inscri})tions  of  the  household. 

13.  'PoG<j>o»' :  one  of  the  commonest  of  slave  names.  This  Rufus 
is  commonly  identified  with  the  one  mentioned  in  Mark  xv.  ai, 
wnere  Simon  of  Cyrene  is  called  the  father  of  Alexander  and  Rufus. 
St.  Mark  probably  wrote  at  Rome,  and  he  seems  to  speak  ol 
Rufus  as  some  one  well  known. 

T^  litXcKT&r  iv  Kwpiy.     '  Elect '  is  probably  not  here  used  in  the 


XVI.  18-16.]  PERSONAL  GREETINGS  497 

technical  sense  '  chosen  of  God/ — this  would  not  be  a  feature  to 
distinguish  Rufus  from  any  other  Christian, — but  it  probably  means 
'  eminent,'  *  distinguished  for  his  special  excellence,'  and  the  addition 
of  cV  Kvpt'w  means  '  eminent  as  a  Christian '  (2  Jo.  i ;  i  Pet.  ii.  6). 
So  in  English  phraseology  the  words  '  a  chosen  vessel '  are  used 
of  all  Christians  generally,  or  to  distinguish  some  one  of  marked 
excellence  from  his  fellows. 

Kal  t^v  )&t|Wpa  auTou  km  i^ov.  St.  Paul  means  that  she  had 
showed  him  on  some  occasion  all  the  care  of  a  mother,  and 
that  therefore  he  felt  for  her  all  the  aflFection  of  a  son. 

14.  'AaoYKpiToi' :  the  following  inscription  is  of  a  freedman  ot 
Augustus  who  bore  this  name,  C.  I.  Z.  vi.  1 2565  d.  m.  |  asyncreto  1 

AVG  •  LIB  •  FECIT  •  FL  |  AVIA  •  SVCCESSA  |  PATRONO  BENE  |  ME- 

RENTi.  The  name  Flavia  suggests  that  it  is  somewhat  later  than 
St.  Paul's  time. 

♦Xeyorro.  The  inscriptions  seem  to  throw  no  light  on  this  name. 
The  most  famous  person  bearing  it  was  the  historian  of  the  second 
century  who  is  referred  to  by  Origen,  and  who  gave  some  informa- 
tion concerning  the  Christians. 

'Epfk^v :  one  of  the  commonest  of  slave  names,  occurring  con- 
stantly among  members  of  the  imperial  household. 

narpoPaf.  An  abbreviated  form  of  Patrobius.  This  name  was 
borne  by  a  well-known  freedman  of  Nero,  who  was  put  to  death  by 
Galba  (Tac.  Jits/,  i.  49  ;  ii.  95).  Lft.  quotes  instances  of  other  freed- 
men  bearing  it:  Ti  •  CL  •  avg  •  L  •  patrobivs  (Grut.  p.  610.  3), 
and  Ti  •  CLAVDio  •  patrobio  (Murat.  p.  1329). 

'Epfias  is  likewise  an  abbreviation  for  various  names,  Hermagoras, 
Hermerus,  Hermodorus,  Hermogenes.  It  is  common  among 
slaves,  but  not  so  much  so  as  Hermes.  Some  fathers  and  modem 
writers  have  identified  this  Hermas  with  the  author  of  the  '  Shepherd,' 
an  identification  which  is  almost  certainly  wrong. 

Kal  Toi^s  9iiy  auTois  dSeXt^ous.  This  and  the  similar  expression  in 
the  next  verse  seem  to  imply  that  these  persons  formed  a  small 
Christian  community  by  themselves. 

15.  ^iXtiXoyos.  A  common  slave  name.  Numerous  instances 
are  quoted  from  inscriptions  of  the  imperial  household :  C.  I.  L.  vi. 

41 16  OAMA  •  LIVIAE  •  L  •  CAS  . . .  |  PHOEBVS  •  PHILOLOGI  |  qUOted  by 

Lft.  from  Gorius,  Mon.Liv.  p.  168  ;  he  also  quotes  Murat.  p.  1586. 
3,  p.  2043.  2 ;  Grut.  p.  630.  I.  He  is  generally  supposed  to  be 
the  brother  or  the  husband  of  Julia,  in  the  latter  case  Nereus,  hia 
sister  Nerias,  and  Olympas  may  be  their  children. 

'louX^af.  Probably  the  commonest  of  all  Roman  female  names, 
certainly  the  commonest  among  slaves  in  the  imperial  household. 
The  following  inscription  is  interesting:  C.  I.  L.  vi.  20416  d.  M.  | 
IVUAE  NEREi  *  P  •  |  CLAVDIAE.  The  name  Julia  Tryphosa  occun 
•0715-7  in  one  case  apparently  in  a  Christian  inscription. 


4a8  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS       [XVI.  16,  18 

Ni|p^«.  This  name  is  found  in  inscriptions  of  the  imperial  house- 
hold, C.  I.  L.  XL  4344  NEREVS  •  HAT  •  GERMAN  |  PEVCENNVS 
GERMANici  I  ANVS  •  NERONis  •  CAESARis.  It  ts  best  known  in 
the  Roman  Church  in  connexion  with  the  Acts  of  Nereus  and 
Achilleus,  the  eunuch  chamberlains  of  Domitilla  (see  Acta  Sancto- 
rum May.  iiL  p.  a  ;  Texte  und  Untertuchungen,  Band  xi.  Heft  a). 
These  names  were,  however,  older  than  that  legend,  as  seems  to 
be  shown  by  the  inscription  of  Damasus  {Bull.  Arch.  Christ.  1874, 
p.  ao  sq. ;  C.  Ins.  Christ.  IL  p.  31)  which  represents  them  as 
soldiers.  The  origin  of  the  legend  was  probably  that  in  the  cata- 
comb of  Domitilla  and  near  to  her  tomb,  appeared  these  two 
names  very  prominently;  this  became  the  groundwork  for  the 
later  romance.  An  inscription  of  Achilleus  has  been  found  in  the 
cemetery  of  Domitilla  on  a  stone  column  with  a  corresponding 
column  which  may  have  borne  the  name  of  Nereus :  both  date  from 
the  fourth  or  fifth  century  {Bull.  Arch.  Christ.  1875,  p.  8  sq.).  These 
of  course  are  later  commemorations  of  earlier  martyrs,  and  it  may 
well  be  that  the  name  of  Nereus  was  in  an  early  inscription  (like 
that  of  Ampliatus  above).  In  any  case  the  name  is  one  connected 
with  the  early  history  of  the  Roman  Church;  and  the  fact  that 
Nereus  is  combined  with  Achilleus,  a  name  which  does  not  appear 
in  the  Romans,  suggests  that  the  origin  of  the  legend  was  archaeo- 
logical, and  that  it  was  not  derived  from  this  Epistle  (Lightfoot, 
Clement,  i.  p.  51  ;  Lipsius  Apokr.  Apgetch.  iL  106  flf.). 

'OXufiirds :  an  abbreviated  form  like  several  in  this  list,  apparently 

for  '0\vnnt6i(iipoi. 

16.  iv  (^iXi^piTi  dyiif :  so  I  Thess.  t.  a6 ;  i  Cor.  xvi.  ao ;  a  Cor. 

xiii.  la;  I  Pet.  v.  14  avndaaa-dt  a\\f]\ovt  iv  ^iKrjfiaTi  aydin;;.  The 
earliest  reference  to  the  '  kiss  of  peace '  as  a  regular  part  of  the 
Christian  service  is  in  JusL  Mart.  Apol.  i.  65  dX\rj\ovs  ^tXiy/xari 
a(Tna(6fi*6a  nava-dfitvoi  r&v  tix&v.  It  is  mentioned  in  Tert.  dc  Oral. 
14  {osculum  pcuis) ;  Const.  Apost.  ii.  57.  la  ;  viii.  5,  5 ;  and  it  became 
a  regular  part  of  the  Liturgy.  Cf.  Origen  ad  loc. :  Ex  hic  sermont, 
aliisque  nonnullis  similibus,  mot  eccUsiis  iraditus  est,  ui  post  orationtf 
osculo  se  invicem  suscipiant  fratrts.  Hoc  auUm  osculum  sanctum 
appellat  Apostolus. 

al  4KKXT)<riai  -iraaai  toS  XpivToS :  this  phrase  is  unique  in  the 
N.T.     Phrases  used  by  St.  Paul  are  at  tVicXijo-iai  ritv  Ayittw,  17  fKKXrja-la 

rot)  6fov^  at  *KK\T)(Tiai  roi  6fOv,  rate  tKicXrjaiais  rrjt  'lovSaias  rals  cV  Xptcrr^ 
(GaL  i.  a  2),  r&v  (VKXijcrtW  rov  6(ov  T&v  ovar&p  n  t%  'lovSaif    iv  TLpurrif 

'lijtrov,  and  in  Acts  xx.  a  8  we  have  the  uncertain  passage  r^r  «- 
KKffalav  rot)  Kvptbv  or  rov  6fov,  where  Qt6s  must,  if  the  correct 
reading,  be  used  of  Xpitrrdt,  It  is  a  habit  of  St.  Paul  to  speak  on 
behalf  of  the  churches  as  a  whole :  cf.  xvi.  4  ;  i  Cor.  vii.  17;  xiv. 
33;  a  Cor.  viii.  18;  xi.  38;  and  Hort  suggests  that  this  unique 
phrase  is  nsed  to  express  '  the  way  in  which  the  Church  of  Roma 


ZVI.  16, 17.]   WARNING  AGAINST  FALSE  TEACHERS       439 

was  an  object  of  love  and  respect  to  Jewish  and  Gentile  Cburchet 
alike '  (Xotn.  and  Eph.  I  5s). 


WABNIirO  AOAHTBT  TAIiSB  TBAOHEBfll 

XVI.  17-20.  Beware  of  those  breeders  of  division  and 
mischief-makers  who  pervert  the  Gospel  which  you  were 
taught.  Men  such  as  these  are  devoted  not  to  Christ  but  to 
their  own  unworthy  aims.  By  their  plausible  and  flattering 
speech  they  deceive  the  unwary.  I  give  you  this  warnings 
because  your  loyalty  is  well  known,  and  I  would  have  you 
free  from  every  taint  of  evil.  God  will  speedily  crush  Satan 
beneath  your  feet. 

May  the  grace  of  Christ  be  withyom. 

17-20.  A  warning  against  evil  teachers  jH-obably  of  a  Jewish 
character.  Commentators  have  felt  that  there  is  something  unusual 
in  a  vehement  outburst  like  this,  coming  at  the  end  of  an  Epistle 
so  completely  destitute  of  direct  controversy.  But  after  all  as  Hort 
points  out  {Rom.  and  Eph.  pp.  53-55)  it  is  not  unnatural.  Against 
errors  such  as  these  St.  Paul  lus  throughout  been  warning  his 
readers  indirectly,  he  has  been  building  up  his  hearers  against 
them  by  laying  down  broad  principles  of  life  and  conduct,  and 
now  just  at  the  end,  just  before  he  finishes,  he  gives  one  definite 
and  direct  warning  against  false  teachers.  It  was  probably  not 
against  teachers  actu^y  in  Rome,  but  against  such  as  he  knew 
qX.  as  existing  in  other  churches  which  he  had  founded,  whose 
advent  to  Rome  he  dreads. 

It  has  been  suggested  again  that  <  St  Paul  finds  k  diflScult  to 
finish.'  There  is  a  certain  truth  in  that  statement,  but  k  is  hardly 
one  which  ought  to  detain  us  long.  When  a  writer  has  very  much 
to  say,  when  he  is  full  of  zeal  and  earnestness,  there  must  be  much 
which  will  break  out  from  him,  and  may  make  his  letters  some- 
what formless.  To  a  thoughtful  reader  the  suppressed  emotion 
implied  and  the  absence  of  regular  method  will  really  be  proofs  of 
authenticity.  It  may  be  noted  that  we  find  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians  just  the  same  characteristics :  there  also  in  iii.  i,  just 
apparently  as  he  is  going  to  finish  the  Epistle,  the  Apostle  makes 
a  digression  against  ^Ise  teachers. 

17.  aicoireir,  'to  mark  and  avoid.'  Tlie  same  word  is  used  in 
PhiL  iii.    17   Wftfuntfrai  fiov  yivtaOt,  ditX^ol^  Kok  VKomum   ro^   ovr« 

trtpanroivTai  in  exactly  the  opposite  sense,  'to  mark  so  w  to 
follow.' 


430  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS       [XVI.  17-lA 

8ixo«Taor^:  cf.  Gal.  v.  to.  Those  divisions  which  are  th« 
result  of  the  spirit  of  strife  and  rivalry  {fpis  and  C^Xor)  and  which 
eventually  if  persisted  in  lead  to  alpi<r*it.  The  aKavboKa  are  the 
hindrances  to  Christian  progress  caused  by  these  embittered 
relations. 

W|K  SiSax^r,  not  '  Panlinism/  bat  that  common  basis  of  Christian 
doctrine  which  St  Paul  shared  with  all  other  teachers  (i  Cor. 
XV.  i),  and  with  which  the  teaching  of  the  Judaizers  was  in  his 
opinion  inconsistent 

^kkX^kotc:  cf.  Rom.  iii.  ii.  The  ordinary  construction  is  with 
an-d  and  the  genitive  (a)  of  the  cause  avoided  <ar4  aonv  (i  Pet 
iii.  ii),  or  {b)  of  the  person. 

18.  These  false  teachers  are  described  as  being  self-interested 
in  their  motives,  specious  and  deceptive  in  their  manners.  Cf. 
Phil.  iii.  19  &!*  r6  rikos  ani>\tia,  hv  i  ^(^  ^  'O'Xta,  aoi  ^  dd^  A»  rf 
alaxvi'D  aiirip,  01  ra  iniytia  <ftpovovvrtt, 

TQ  iauTtav  KoiXif .  These  words  do  not  in  this  case  appear  to 
mean  that  their  habits  are  lax  and  epicurean,  but  that  their  motires 
are  interested,  and  their  conceptions  and  objects  are  inadequate. 
So  Oi  igen :  Sed  et  quid  causae  sit,  qua  iurgia  in  eccUsiis  xuxcitantur^ 
et  lites,  divini  Spiritus  instinctu  aperit.  Ventris,  inquit,  gratia :  hoc 
est,  quaestus  et  cupiditatis.  The  meaning  is  the  same  probably  in 
the  somewhat  parallel  passages  Phil.  iii.  17-21;  CoL  ii.  so-iiL  4. 
So  Hort  {Judaistic  Christianity,  p.  124)  explains  rantivocppoavpri  to 
mean  '  a  grovelling  habit  of  mind,  choosing  lower  things  as  the 
primary  sphere  of  religion,  and  not  tA  av»,  the  region  in  which 
Christ  is  seated  at  Goti's  right  hand.' 

XpTjo-ToXoyias  nal  cuXoyias,  '  fair  and  flattering  speech.'  In 
illustration  of  the  first  word  all  commentators  quote  Jul.  Capitolinus, 
Pertinax  13  (in  Hist.  August)'.  xpn<^o^oyov  eum  appellanies qui beTU 
loqueretur  et  male  facer  et.  The  use  of  (vKoyla  which  generally  means 
'praise,'  'laudation,'  or  'blessing'  (cp.  xv.  29),  in  a  bad  sense  as 
here  of  'flattering'  or  'specious'  language  is  rare.  An  instance  is 
quoted  in  the  dictionaries  from  Aesop.  Fab.  229,  p.  150,  ed.  Av. 

iav  (TV  fvXoyiat  tvnop^s  tyayi  crov  oii  Ktjdofiai. 

10.  if  Y^p  ufiwr  6iraKoi^.  '  I  exhort  and  warn  you  because  your 
excellence  and  fidelity  although  they  give  me  great  cause  for 
rejoicing  increase  my  anxiety.*  These  words  seem  definitely 
to  imply  that  there  were  not  as  yet  any  dissensions  or  erroneous 
teaching  in  the  Church.  They  are  (as  has  been  noticed)  quite 
inconsistent  with  the  supposed  Ebionite  character  of  the  Church. 
When  that  theory  was  given  up,  all  ground  for  holding  these 
words  spurious  was  taken  away. 

6iKm  %i  dftas.  St  Paul  wishes  to  give  this  warning  without 
at  the  same  time  saying  anything  to  injure  their  feelings.  He 
gives  it  because  he  wishes  them  to  be  discreet  and  wary,  and 


XVI.  ie-28.]  WARNING  AGAINST  FALSE  TEACHERS     431 

therefore  blamelenk  In  Matt  x.  16  the  disciples  are  to  b« 
^poviftoi  and  dxtpaiMi  see  also  Phil.  ii.  15* 

20.  6  Zk  Oc&s  Tf]s  cipil)in)f.  See  on  xv.  13.  It  is  the  'God  of 
peace '  who  will  thus  overthrow  Satan,  because  the  efifect  of  these 
divisions  is  to  break  up  the  peace  of  the  Church. 

oucTpiil/ci :  'will  throw  him  under  your  feet,  that  jou  may  trample 
upon  him.' 

TOK  laravav.  In  s  Cor.  xi.  1 4  St.  Paul  writes  '  for  even  Satan 
feshioneth  himself  into  an  angel  of  light.  It  is  no  great  thing 
therefore  if  his  ministers  also  fashion  themselves  as  ministers  of 
righteousness.'  The  ministers  of  Satan  are  looked  upon  as  im- 
personating Satan  himself,  and  therefore  if  the  Church  keeps  at 
peace  it  will  trample  Satan  and  his  wiles  under  foot 

4  X<^pts  "-T-^-  S^-  P^ul  closes  this  warning  with  a  salutation 
as  at  the  end  of  an  Epistle. 

There  is  very  considerable  divergence  in  different  aathoritiet  m  to  Ac 
benedictions  which  they  insert  in  these  concluding  verses. 

(i)  The  TR.  reads  in  ver.  ao  ^  x^P^*  ^^  Kvpiov  ^fmr  liyraS  [X^ffroS] 
luO'  iinSnf. 

This  is  supported  by  K  A  B  C  L  P,  &c.,  Viilg.  &c.,  Orig.-lat 
It  is  omitted  by  D  E  F  G  Sednl. 
(i)  In  ver.  34  it  reads  ^  x^P**  ""^^  Kvflow  ^ftSty  %  X.  fitrA  wivruw  t/tS^. 

This  is  omitted  by  M ABC,  Valg.  cedJ.  (am.  fuld.  karl.)  Boh.  Aeth. 

Orig.-lat. 
It  is  inserted  by  D  E  F  G  L,  &c.,  Vnlg.  Hard.  Chrys.  &c     Of  these 
F  G  L  omit  tv.  35-37,  and  therefore  make  these  words  the  end  of  the 
Epistle. 
(3)  A  third  and  smaller  group  pats  these  words  at  di*  «nd  of  vec  17  : 
P.  17.  80,  Pesh.  Arm.  Ambrstr. 
Analyzing  these  readings  we  find : 

K  A  BC,  Orig.-lat  have  a  benediction  at  ver.  si  only. 

D  E  F  G  have  one  at  ver.  34  only. 

L,  Vulg.  cU»$.,  Ctirys.,  and  the  mass  ^f  lata  Mtktrities  have  it  ia  both 

places. 
P  has  it  at  ver.  si,  and  after  ver.  ty. 
The  correct  text  clearly  has  a  benediction  at  rer.  ai  and  there  only;  it 
was  afterwards  moved  to  a  place  after  ver.  34,  which  was  very  probably 
in  some  MSS.  the  end  of  the  Epistle,  and  in  later  MSS.,  by  a  natural 
cooflatioQ,  appears  in  both.    Sea  the  Introdnctiatt,  S  9> 


OBEETINaS  OP  ST.  PAUL'S  C0MPAin01l& 

ZVI.  21-23.  All  my  companions — Timothy^  Lucius,  yason, 
and  Sostpater — greet  you.  I  Tertius,  the  amanuensis,  also 
give  you  Christian  greeting.  So  too  do  Gaius,  and  Erastus, 
treasurer  of  Corinihy  and  Quartus. 

21-28.  These  three  verses  form  a  sort  oi  postscript  added  aftei 


43*  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS      [XVI.  21-27 

the  conclusion  of  the  letter  and  containing  the  names  of  St  Paul's 

companions. 

21.  Ti|i<59eos  had  been  with  St  Paul  in  Macedonia  (»  Cor,  I  i) : 
of  his  movements  since  then  we  have  no  knowledge.  The  /io» 
with  <Tvv*py6s  is  omitted  by  B. 

AouKios  might  be  the  Lucius  of  Cyrene  mentioned  Acts  ziii.  i. 
'icKTfuv  is  probably  the  one  mentioned  in  Acts  xvii.  5-7,  9  as 
St.  Paul's  host,  and  Soxr/n-arpor  may  be  the  same  as  the  s«7rarpor 
of  Acts  XX.  4,  who  was  a  native  of  Berea.  If  these  identifications 
are  correct,  two  of  these  three  names  are  connected  with  Mace- 
donia, and  this  connexion  is  by  no  means  improbable.  They  had 
attached  themselves  to  St.  Paul  as  his  regular  companions,  or 
come  to  visit  him  from  Thessalonica.  In  any  case  they  were 
Jews  (oi  (Tvyytvfis  fiov  cf.  ver.  7).  It  was  natural  that  St  Paul 
should  lodge  with  a  fellow-countryman. 

22.  6  Ypa+as-  St.  Paul  seems  generally  to  have  employed  an 
amanuensis,  see  i  Cor.  xvi.  ai ;  Col.  iv.  18 ;  t  Thess.  iii.  17,  and 
cf.  Gal.  vi.  1 1  ibtTt  VTjXiKois  vfxiv  ypanftaaiv  typa\fra  ttj  fpfi  xtipi. 

23.  rd'ios  who  is  described  as  the  host  of  St.  Paul  and  of 
the  whole  Church  is  possibly  the  Gaius  of  i  Cor.  i.  14.  In  all 
probability  the  Christian  assembly  met  in  his  house.  Erastus 
(cf.  a  Tim.  iv.  20)  who  held  the  important  office  of  oIkovohos  t^i 
ni\fas,  '  the  city  treasurer,'  is  presumably  mentioned  M  the  most 
influential  member  of  the  community. 


THE  CONCIiUDINO  DOZOLOOT. 

XVI.  25-27.  And  now  let  me  give  praise  to  God,  whe  eon 
make  you  firm  believers,  duly  trained  and  established  accord' 
ing  to  the  Gospel  that  I  proclaim,  the  preaching  which 
announces  Jesus  the  Messiah;  that  preachiftg  in  which 
God's  eternal  purpose,  the  mystery  of  his  working,  kept 
silent  since  the  world  began,  has  been  revealed,  a  purposi 
which  the  Prophets  of  old  foretold,  which  has  been  preached 
now  by  God's  express  command,  which  announces  to  all  the 
Gentiles  the  message  of  obedience  in  faith :  to  God,  I  say,  to 
Him  who  is  alone  wise,  be  the  glory  for  ever  tJirough  Jesus 
Messiah.    Amen. 

25-27.  The  Epistle  concludes  in  a  manner  unusual  in  St.  Paul 
with  a  doxology  or  ascription  of  praise,  in  which  incidentally  all 
ttie  great   thoughts  of  the  Epistle  are  summed   op.      Although 


XVI.  25.]  THE  CONCLUDING  DOXOLOGY  433 

doxologies  are  not  uncommon  in  these  Epistles  (Gal.  I  g ;  Rom. 
xi.  36),  they  are  not  usually  so  long  or  so  heavily  weighted ;  but 
Eph.  iii.  a  I ;  Phil.  iv.  20;  i  Tim.  i.  17  offer  quite  sufficient  parallels; 
the  two  former  at  a  not  much  later  date.  Ascriptions  of  praise  at 
the  conclusion  of  other  Epp.  are  common,  Heb.  xiii.  20,  a  I ;  Jude 
a4,  as;  Clem.  Rom.  §  Ixv;  Mart.  Polyc.  ao. 

The  various  questions  bearing  on  the  genuineness  of  these 
verses  and  their  positions  in  different  MSS.,  have  been  sufficiently 
discussed  in  the  Introduction,  §  9.  Here  they  are  commented 
upon  as  a  genuine  and  original  conclusion  to  the  Epistle  exactly 
harmonizing  with  its  contents.  The  commentary  is  mainly  based 
on  the  paper  by  Hort  published  in  Lightfoot,  Biblical  Essays, 
p.  3ai  flF. 

25.  T^  8j  Sui'aii^yM  fiftfis  (rn|pi|ai :  cf.  Rom.  xiv.  4  or^Kft  ^  mirrcc 
vradrjatTai   bi'    bwarti   yap    6   Kvpios    aTrjtTai    amou.      A    more    exaCt 

parallel  is  furnished  by  Eph.  iii.  20  ra  8«  hvvap.(v<a  . .  .  noi^aai .  .  . 
airy  ^  i6^a.  irn)pi(m  is  confined  in  St.  Paul  to  the  earlier  Epistles 
(Rom.  i.  II ;  and  Thess.).  Svvanai,  Swaros,  8vvaT€<o  of  God,  with 
an  infinitive,  are  common  in  this  group.  We  are  at  once  reminded 
that  in  i.  II  St.  Paul  had  stated  that  one  of  the  purposes  of  his 
contemplated  visit  was  to  confer  on  them  some  spiritual  gift  that 
they  might  be  established. 

Kard  ri  *iayy£KL6v  |iOM:  Rom.  ii.  16;  a  Tim.  ii.  8;  cf.  also 
Rom.  xi.  a 8  Kara  ri  tiayyfXiov.  One  salient  feature  of  the  Epistle 
is  at  once  alluded  to,  that  special  Gospel  of  St.  Paul  which  he 
desired  to  explain,  and  which  is  the  main  motive  of  this  Epistle. 
St.  Paul  did  not  look  upon  this  as  antagonistic  to  the  common 
faith  of  the  Church,  but  as  complementary  to  and  explanatory  of 
it  To  expound  this  would  especially  lead  to  the  '  establishment ' 
of  a  Christian  Church,  for  if  rightly  understood,  it  would  promote 
the  harmony  of  Jew  and  Gentile  within  it 

Kal  TO  K^puy^a  'ItjctoG  Xpioroo.  The  words  Krjpvyfia,  lOfpvtriTtw 
occur  throughout  St.  Paul's  Epp.,  but  more  especially  in  this 
second  group.  (Rom.  x.  8;  i  Cor.  i.  ai,  ag;  ii.  4;  a  Cor.  L  19; 
iv.  5 ;  xi.  4 ;  Gral.  ii.  a,  &c.^  The  genitive  is  clearly  objective, 
the  preaching  '  about  Christ  ;  and  the  thought  of  St.  Paul  is 
most  clearly  indicated  in  Rom.  x.  8-12,  which  seems  to  be  here 
summed  up.  St.  Paul's  life  was  one  of  preaching.  The  object 
of  his  preaching  was  faith  in  Jesus  the  Messiah,  and  that  name 
implies  the  two  great  aspects  of  the  message,  on  the  one  hand 
salvation  through  faith  in  Him,  on  the  other  as  a  necessary 
consequence  the  universality  of  that  salvation.  The  reference 
is  clearly  to  just  the  thoughts  which  run  through  this  Epistle,  and 
which  marked  the  period  of  the  Judaistic  controversies. 

Kard  diroKdXu^iK  fjiuanripiou   k.t.X.     Cf.  I  Cor.  ii.  6,  7,  10  <ro<^tm 

Ft 


434  IPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS      [ZVI.  26,  86 

fiftnjv,  tjp  np9Apt&tv  6  Gtht  nph  t&v  al&pctv  . . .  fffjuw  tH  airtKoKvufttv  i  BcAf 
8ta  Tov  nvtvfiarns.  Eph.  iii,  3,  5,  6 ;  Tit.  i  *,  3 ;  a  Tim.  L  9,  10, 
and  for  separate  phrases,  Rom.  i.  16 ;  iii.  ai ;  xi.  25.  This  is  the 
thought  which  underlies  much  of  the  argument  of  chaps,  ix-xi, 
and  is  indirectly  implied  in  the  first  eight  chapters.  It  represents 
in  fact,  the  conclusion  which  the  Apostle  has  arrived  at  in  musing 
over  the  difficulties  which  the  problems  of  human  history  as  he 
knew  them  had  suggested.  God  who  rules  over  all  the  aeons  or 
periods  in  time,  which  have  passed  and  which  are  to  come,  is 
working  out  an  eternal  purpose  in  the  world.  For  ages  it  was 
a  mystery,  now  in  these  last  days  it  has  been  revealed :  and  this 
revelation  explains  the  meaning  of  God's  working  in  the  past. 
The  thought  then  forms  a  transition  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  Romans  to  that  of  the  Ephesians.  It  is  not  unknown  in  the 
Epp.  of  the  second  g^roup,  as  the  quotation  from  Corinthians  shows; 
but  there  it  represents  rather  the  conclusion  which  is  being  arrived 
at  by  the  Aposde,  while  in  the  Epp.  of  the  Captivity  it  is  assumed 
as  already  proved,  and  as  the  basis  on  which  the  idea  of  the  Church 
is  developed.  The  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is  the  first 
place  where  we  should  expect  this  thought  in  a  doxology,  and 
coming  there,  it  exactly  brings  out  the  force  and  purpose  of  the 
previous  discussion. 

The  passage  Kara  dnoKoKvyj/tw  dowH  to  yvmpKrBivTos  goes  not  with 
(TTTipl^ai  but  with  KTjpvyfM,  The  preaching  of  Christ  was  the 
revelation  of  the  *  mystery  which  had  been  hidden,'  and  explained 
God's  purpose  in  the  world. 

26.  In  this  verse  we  should  certainly  read  f)ta  n  ypa(f)S»p  wpo- 
<^i)tikS>v.  The  only  Greek  MSS.  that  omit  t«  are  DE,  and  the 
authority  of  versions  can  hardly  be  quoted  against  it  Moreover, 
the  sentence  is  much  simpler  if  it  be  inserted.  It  couples  together 
<f>avtp(o6iVTot  and  yvapiadfin-nt,  and  all  the  words  from  did  «  ypa(f)Ap 
to  the  latter  word  should  be  taken  together,     fit  wapra  to  t6pti 

probably  goes  with  tls  vnaKorjv  wiarfms  and  not  with  ypaptadevros. 

hid  TC  ypa^CiP  -n-po({>i]TiKWK  .  .  .  yvupiaQitnos.  All  the  ideas  in 
this  sentence  are  exactly  in  accordance  with  the  thoughts  which 
run  through  this  Epistle.  The  unity  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, the  fact  that  Christ  had  come  in  accordance  with  the 
Scriptures  (Rom.  i.  i,  a),  that  the  new  method  of  salvation  although 
apart  from  law,  was  witnessed  to  by  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 

(fiapTvpovpivri    vno    rov    vopov    Ka\    riv   irpocprjrip    Rom.   iiL    ai),    the 

constant  allusion  esp.  in  chaps,  ix-xi  to  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures;    all  these  are  summed  up  in  the  phrase  dia  ypa(f)mt 

wpo<f)TfriKiop. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  idea  expressed  by  mir  iiriraytip  rw 
elmpiov  e«oO.  The  mission  given  to  the  preachers  of  the  Gosp)el 
it  brought  out  generally  in  Rom.  x.  15  £f.,  the  special  cotni&iLn4 


XVI.  26,  27.]  THE  CONCLUDING  DOXOLOGY  435 

to  the  Apostle  is  dwelt  on  in  the  opening  w.  1-5,  and  the  sense 
of  commission  is  a  constant  thought  of  this  period.  With  regard 
to  the  words,  alaviov  is  of  course  suggested  by  xP"'"***  aluviott: 
cp.  Baruch  iv.  8,  Susanna  (Theod.)  42  (LXX)  35.  The  formula 
KOT  tnirayrjy  occurs  I  Cor.  vii.  6;  a  Cor.  viii.  8,  but  with  quite 
a  different  meaning ;  in  the  sense  of  this  passage  it  comes  again  in 
I  Tim.  i.  I ;  Tit.  i.  3. 

We  find  the  phrase  tit  fnroKofip  vitmmt  in  Rom.  i.  5.  As  Hort 
points  out,  the  enlarged  sense  of  wr«o^  and  viraKovm  is  confined  to 
the  earlier  Epistles. 

The  last  phrase  «*f  ndwra  rit  tOvri  yvnpurSivrot  hardly  requires 
illustrating ;  it  is  a  commonplace  of  the  Epistle.  In  this  passage 
still  carrying  on  the  explanation  of  Kripvyfia,  four  main  ideas  of 
the  Apostolic  preaching  are  touched  upon — the  continuity  of  the 
Gospel,  the  Apostolic  commission,  salvation  through  faith,  the 
preaching  to  the  Gentiles. 

fi6vtf  <ro(j)u  ecu:  a  somewhat  similar  expression  may  be  found 
in  I  Tim,  i.  17,  which  at  a  later  date  was  assimilated  to  this,  (ro0y 
being  inserted.  But  the  idea  again  sums  up  another  line  of 
thought  in  the  Epistle — God  is  one,  therefore  He  is  God  of  both 
Jews  and  Greeks ;  the  Gospel  is  one  (iii.  29,  30).   God  is  infinitely 

wise    (S>  ^dOoi  nXovTov    Koi    ao(f)ias  Koi  yvaxTtat   &tov  xi.    33)  J    even 

when  we  cannot  follow  His  tracks.  He  is  leading  and  guiding 
us,  and  the  end  will  prove  the  depths  of  His  wisdom. 

27.  Y  ^  ^^i°-  ttX     The  reading  here  is  very  difficult. 

I.  It  would  be  easy  and  simple  if  following  the  authority  of 
B.  33.  7a,  Pesh.,  Orig.-lat.  we  could  omit  «,  or  if  we  could  read 
avry  with  P.  3 1.  54  (Boh.  Cannot  be  quoted  in  favour  of  this 
reading;  Wilkins'  translation  which  Tisch.  follows  is  wrong). 
But  both  these  look  very  much  like  corrections,  and  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  4  came  to  be  inserted  if  it  was  not  part  of  the  original 
text.  Nor  is  it  inexplicable.  The  Apostle's  mind  is  so  full  of  the 
thoughts  of  the  Epistle  that  they  come  crowding  out,  and  have 
produced  the  heavily  loaded  phrases  of  the  doxology  ;  the  struc- 
ture of  the  sentence  is  thus  lost,  and  he  concludes  with  a  well- 
known  formula  of  praise  ^  ^  d6$a  k.tA.  (Gal.  i.  15;  a  Tim.  iv.  18; 
Heb.  xiii.  ai). 

a.  If  the  involved  construction  were  the  only  difficulty  caused 
by  reading  y,  it  would  probably  be  right  to  retain  it  But  there 
are  others  more  serious.  How  are  the  words  dm  'L  X.  to  be  taken? 
and  what  does  w  refer  to  ? 

(1)  Grammatically  the  simplest  solution  is  to  suppose,  with 
Lid.,  that  a  refers  to  Christ,  and  that  St.  Paul  has  changed  the 
construction  owing  to  the  words  dta  *I.  X.  He  had  intended  to 
finish   *to  the  only  wise  God  through  Christ  Jesus  be  Glory/ 

aa  in  Jude  05  /m(iy  ^'f  tf'ur^pt  '}/****',  ^  '!•  3L  rw  Kvpiov  iiftrnp,  do^ 


i3fi  KPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS  [ZVI.  IT 

itryahmvvpif,  crX,  but  the  words  *liy<r*5  Xpurr^i  remind  him  that 
it  is  through  the  work  of  Christ  that  all  this  scheme  has  been 
developed;  he  therefore  ascribes  to  Him  the  glory.  This  is  the 
only  possible  construction  if  5^  be  read,  but  it  can  hardly  be 
correct;  and  that  not  because  we  can  assert  that  on  «  priori 
grounds  a  doxology  cannot  be  addressed  to  the  Son,  but  because 
such  a  doxology  would  not  be  in  place  here.  The  whole  purpose 
of  these  concluding  verses  is  an  ascription  of  praise  to  Him  who 
is  the  only  wise  God. 

(a)  For  this  reason  most  commentators  attempt  to  refer  the 
^  to  eta.  This  in  itself  is  not  difficult:  it  resembles  what  is 
the  probable  construction  in  i  Pet.  iv.  11,  and  perhaps  in  Heb. 
xiii.  a  I.  But  then  dih  *!.  X.  becomes  very  difficult  To  take  it 
with  ao(})a  would  be  impossible,  and  to  transfer  it  into  the 
relative  clause  would  be  insufferably  harsh. 

There  is  no  doubt  therefore  that  it  is  by  far  the  easiest  course 
to  omit  ^.  We  have  however  the  alternative  of  supposing  that 
it  is  a  blunder  made  by  St.  Paul's  secretary  in  the  original  letter. 
We  have  seen  that  some  such  hypothesis  may  explain  the  im* 
possible  reading  in  iv.  i  a. 

<{t  Tovi  cduvat  should  be  read  with  BCL,  Hard.,  Chrys.  Cyr.  Theodit 
T&v  aUwoiv  was  added  in  NADEP,  Vnlg.  Pe«h.  Bolu,  Oii^.-lat  Scc^ 
owing  to  the  influence  of  i  Tim.  i.  17. 

The  doxology  sums  up  all  the  great  ideas  of  the  Epistle. 
The  power  of  the  Gospel  which  St.  Paul  was  commissioned  to 
preach;  the  revelation  in  it  of  the  eternal  purpose  of  God;  its 
contents,  faith ;  its  sphere,  all  the  nations  of  the  earth ;  its  author, 
the  one  wise  God,  whose  wisdom  is  thus  vindicated — all  these 
thoughts  had  been  continually  dwelt  on.  And  so  at  the  end 
feeling  how  unfit  a  conclusion  would  be  the  jarring  note  of 
w.  17-20,  and  wishing  to  'restore  the  Epistle  at  its  close  to  its 
tone  of  serene  loftiness,'  the  Apostle  adds  these  verses,  writing 
them  perhaps  with  his  own  hand  in  those  large  bold  letters  which 
seem  to  have  formed  a  sort  of  authentication  of  his  Epistles 
(Gal.  vi.  11),  and  thus  gives  an  eloquent  conclusion  to  his  great 
argument 


INDEX  TO  THE   NOTES 


I.  Subjects. 


Abbot,  Dr.  Ezra,  p.  133. 

Abbott,  Dr.  T.  K.,  pp.  laS ;  185,  Sec, 

Abelaid,  pp.  cii;  273. 

Abrmham,  Descent  from,  p.  55. 

Faith  of,  p.  97  fl. 

History  of,  in  St.  Paul  and  St. 
James,  p.  loa  ff. 

Promise  to,  pp.  i09ff. ;  348. 

Righteousness  of,  p.  100  fl. 
Accasative  case,  vi.  10 ;  vilL  y 
Acilias  Glabrio,  pi  410. 
Acte,  p.  xviL 
Adam,  pp.  ijoff. ;  34}  ff. 

Fall  of,  p.  136  i. 
Adrian,  p.  45. 
Agrippesii,  pp.  zx ;  xziiL 
Alexandrian  text,  p.  bad. 
AUxandriiuu,  Ctlde*,  p.  LdM. 
Alford,  Dean,  p.  cviiL 
Alitams,  p.  xxii. 

Amanuensis,  zri.  sa  ;  pp.  Is;  197. 
Ambrosiaster,  pp.  zxv ;  d. 
Amiaiinus,  Codex,  pp.  Ixvi ;  bc 
Ampliatas,  xvi.  8  ;  pp.  xxvii  ;  xzxIt. 
AndronicQS,  xvi.  7  ;  pp.  xxvii ;  xzziv. 
Angeluns,  Codex,  p.  unr. 
Angels,  pp.  146  ;  323  £. 
Aorist  tense,  u.  15 ;  iii.  »7. 
Apelles,  xvi.  18 ;  p.  zzxit. 
ApoUonivB,  p.  Iii. 
Apostle,  pp.  4  f. ;  433. 
Aquila    and    Priscilla    (Pritca),   pp. 
xviiij  xxvk;  xxxiv;  zl;  370;  411; 
414  flf. 

titulus  ot,  pu  41^ 

the  church  m  their  house,  p.  xxzv. 
A^ilia  Priaea,  p.  4*0. 


Aqninas,  Thomas,  pp.  cM;    ifo  £; 

37a  f. ;  349 ;  394. 
Aristides,  p.  IxxxiL 
Aristobulns,  xvi.  10;  pp.  xxiii ;  xxvii; 

xxxiv ;  XXXV. 
Armenian  Version,  pp.  Ixvii ;  Ixriti  t, 
Arminias,  pp.  civ ;  374. 
Arnold,  Matthew,  pp.  xliv;  163  f. 
Article,  Use  of,  ii.  la,  13;  iii.  11;  It. 

13,  34  ;  viii.  36;  ix.  4. 
Asia,  Province  of,  xvL  5. 
Astarte,  p.  xviiL 
Asyncritus,  xvi.  14  ,  p.  zxxr. 
Athanasins,  St,  p.  305. 
Atonement,  pp.  88 ;  91  ff.;  117;  119; 

149. 
Day  of,  pp.  85  ;  93  ;  lis  ff. 
Attraction,  Grammatical,  iv.  17;  vi 

17;  ix.  34;  X.  14, 
Angiensis,  Codex,  pp.  Ixiv ;  Ixis. 
Augustesii,  pp.  xx ;  xxiii. 
Augustine,  St.,  pp.  149  f.;  185;  S17; 

*1^i-;  379;  394»&c 

Babylon,  as  a  name  of  Rome,  p.  xxif 
Balfour,  Mr.  A.  J.,  p.  334. 
Baptism,  pp.  107 ;  153  ff. 
Barmby,  I>r.  J.,  p.  cix. 
Baruch,  Apocalypse  of,  pp.  33 ;  i|7  • 

307,  (Sec. 
Basileides,  p.  Ixxxii. 
Batiffol,  The  Abb^  P.,  p.  bnr. 
Biumlein,  W.,  pp.  ao,  &c. 
Baor,  F.  C,  pp.  xxxii;  xxxix;  aai; 

400. 
Beet,  Dr.  J.  Agar,  p.  cviL 
BcnedictioD,  The  eoadnding^  p.  adl 


43« 


IMDBX  TO  THE  NOTES 


Bengel,  J.  A-,  jp.  m. 

Berliner,  p.  xviiL 
Beyichlag,  Dr.  Willibald,  p.  #75. 
Beta,  Theodore,  p.  civ. 
Blood-shedding,   Sacrificial,   pp.   89; 

91  f. ;  119. 
Boenurianus,  Codex,  pp.  Ixiv ;  bdz. 
Bohairic  Version,  viiL  a8;  p.  IzriL 
Bousaet,  VV.,  p.  Ixviii  f. 
Browning,  Robert,  p.  263. 
Bnrton,  ProL  £.  D«  Witt,  p.  M  ttd 

passim. 

Cains,  p.  xxix. 
'  Caligula,  p.  ix. 
Call,  Conception  of,  pp.  4;  fiy. 
Callistus,  the  Roman  Bishop,  p.  zziii. 
Calvin,  pp.  ciii;  151  f , ;  373. 
Capito,  p.  XV. 
Caspari,  Dr.  C.  P.,  p  liL 
Catacumbas,  ad,  p.  xxx. 
Cenchieae,  xvi.  I ;  p.  xzxviL 
Ceriani,  Dr.,  p.  Ixvii. 
Charles,  R.  H.,  pp.  145;  326,  &c. 
Chrestus,  p.  xx. 
Chrysostom,  St,  pp.  xcix ;  148;  370; 

395,  &c. 
Churches,  the  earliest  (buildings  fox 

worship),  xvi.  5. 
Cicero,  p.  xx. 
Circumcision,  p.  106  flF. 
Civil  Power,  pp.  365  ff. ;  369  ff. 
Claromontanus,  Codex,  pp.  Ixiv ;  Ixix. 
Clemen,  Dr.  A.,  pp.  xxxvii  ;  xxxviii ; 

307- 
Clemen,  Dr.  C,  pp.  xxxvii  f. ;  Ixxxix. 
Clemens  Romanus,  pp.  xxix ;  Ixxix ; 

147;  371- 
Clemens,  Flavins,  p.  xxxv. 
Coislinianus,  Codex,  pp.  Ixiv ;  IzviH ; 

Ixxii. 
Colet,  John,  p.  cii. 
Collection  for  the  saints  in  Jerusalem, 

pp.  xxxvi ;  xcii. 
Columbaria,  p.  xviL 
Commandments,  The  Ten,  p.  373  f. 
Communication    in   Roman   Empire, 

p.  xxvi  f. 
Conflict,  The  Inward,  p,  184  i. 
Conversion,  p.  186. 
Conybeare,  F.  C,  p.  Ixix. 
Cook,  Canon,  p.  IxviL 
Corbulo,  p.  XV. 
Corinth,  p.  xxxvi. 
Corinthians,  First  Epistle  to,  pp.  xxxrii ; 

418. 
Corsseo,  Dr.  P.,  pp.  Ixviii ;  Ixix ;  xcviiL 


Covenant,  pp.  330;  t^ 

Critici  Sacri,  p.  da, 

Cyprian,  p.  liL 

Cyrene,  p.  xvi. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  p.  ai6 1 

Damascenus,  Johannes,  p.  & 
Damasus,  the  Roman  Bishop,  p  zs& 
Date  of  the  Epistle,  pp.  xxxvi  ff. ;  a. 
Dative  case,  iv.  ao;  vi  5  ;  viL  4,  f , 

viii.  34. 
David,  Descent  of  Messiah  from,  L  }] 

as  anthor  of  Psalms,  iv.  6  ;  xL  9. 
Days,  Observance  of,  p.  386  f. 
Death,   Idea  of  (see   'Jesns  Christ, 

Death  of  ;  Bin/aroi)^  vi.  8. 
Deissmann,  Hen  G.  A.,  pp.  160  £  j 

444  ff. 
Delitzsch,  Dr.  F.,  p.  45  «tA  passim. 
Depositio  Martyrum,  p.  xxx. 
De  Rossi,  Cav.  G.  B.,  p.  418  fL 
De  Wette,  p.  cvi. 
Dickson,  Dr.  W.  P.,  p.  cvL 
Dionysins  of  Corinth,  p.  «»<y, 
Domitilla,  p.  xxxv. 
Doxologies,  pp.  46  ;  337  £ 
Doxology,  The  (Rom.  xvL   f6-t7), 

pp.  Ixxix  ;  Ixxxix  ;  xcr ;  43a  ft 
Dwight,  Dr.  T.,  p.  asj. 

Ebionite,  p.  400. 

Edersheim,  Dr.  A.,  pp.  xxili;  136  ft 
Egyptian  Versions,  p.  Ixvii. 
Election,  pp.  344  i. ;  348  ff. ;  344. 
Epaenetus,  xvi.  5  ;  p.  xxvii. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  p^  !▼. 
Ephesus,  pp.  xvi;  xciii. 
Ephratmi,  Codex,  p.  Ixiii. 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  AddreaMi  •( 

P-  ^5- 
Erasmns,  p.  ciL 
Erastns,  p.  xxxriL 
Esau,  ix.  13. 
Essenes,  p.  400  £ 
Estius,  p  civ. 
Ethiopic  Version,  p.  Ixvft 
Euthalins,  p.  Ixix. 
Euthymius  Zigabenns,  p.  c 
Evans,  Dr.  T.  S.,  pp.  99;  ia6;  %%\\ 

3"' 
Evanson,  E.,  p.  IxxxvL 
Everling,  Dr.  O.,  p.  a  J  3, 
Evil,  Power  of,  p  145  £ 
Ewald,  Dr.  P.,  p.  61. 
E^a,    Fourth   Book   oi^   p.  SJ    and 


L    SUBJECTS 


430 


Fairbaim,  Dr.  A.  M^  fk  cUL 

Faith,  pp.  19;  sift;  83  C;  94  t.; 

97  ft 
and  Works,  pp.  57 ;  105. 
Fall,  The,  pp.  85;   130  B.',  136  ff.; 

143  «. ;  ao5. 
Felix,  p.  XT. 

Forensic  terms,  pp.  30  f.;  190;  aaa 
Free-Will,  pp.  216;  347  L 
Fricke,  Dr.  G.  A.,  p.  131. 
Friedlander,  Dr.  L.,  p.  51. 
Fritzsche,  C.  F.  A.,  pp.  cvi ;  175,  &c. 
Fuldemis,  Codss,  pp.  Ixri ;  xc. 

Gains,  xri.  33  ;  p.  xxxrii. 
Galatia,  Churches  of,  p.  xxxviii. 
Galatians,  Epistle  to  uie,  p.  xxxvU. 
Genitive  case,  iii.  aa ;  iv.  11;  ▼.  5; 
vii.  5 ;  viii.  36 ;  rv.  5,  13,  33 ;  xvi. 
ao,  35. 
Gentiles  (see  t6vr)\  L  5,  13,  i8-3a ; 
iL  14  f.,  26;  iii.  9,  a3,  39  f.;  ix.  30; 
m.  la  ;  xv.  9  ff.,  16  f.;  xri.  36. 
Call  of  the,  ix.  34  ff. 
Gentile-Christians,   L  6;  vr.  17;  zi. 
13  ff. ;  XV.  9  ff.,  37. 
in  Church  of  Rome,  pp.  zxzii ;  Iii  f 
Gifford,  Dr.  E.  H.,  p.  cviii. 
Gnostics,  pp.  369 ;  368. 
Goo,  as  Creator,  pp.  359 ;  a66  L 
•■  Father,  pp.   16  1;    aoi  ff. ; 

396  f. 
Love  of,  pp.  1 18 1 ;  ity,  ai9  ft ; 

134. 
Mercy  of,  p.  33a  ffl 
Sovereignty  of,  pp.  3 16 ;  350  fL ; 

"57  1- 
Godct,  Dr.  F.,  p.  cviii,  &c. 
Gore,  Canon,  pp.  300 ;  367,  &c 
Gospel,  The,  pp.  xliii ;  1. 

Universality  of  Uie  (set  'Gen- 
tiles*), p.  398! 
Gospels,  The,  pp.  8;  17;   30;  3a; 

36  f.;  91;  381  f.;  431. 
Gothic  Version,  The,  pp.  Ixvii ;  box. 
Grace  (see  x&pit).  The  state  of^  p.  3 1 8  ff. 
Grafe,  Dr.  E.,  p.  53. 
Greek  Commentators,  pp.  xcix ;  107  ; 

316. 
Greeks  in  Rome,  p.  xvil. 
Green,  T.  H.,  pp.  4a  ;  164  C 
Grimm,  Dr.  Willibald,  p.  333. 
Grotins,  Hugo,  p.  civ. 
Grouping  of  MSS.,  p.  IzviL 

Hammond,  Henry,  p.  cr. 

Heathen  (sec '  Gentilea,'  f^),  p.  49  £ 


Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  pp.  bcni; 
3»;  9a;  "5- 

Heirship,  p.  30i  ff. 

Hermas,  xvi.  14. 

Hermes,  xvL  14. 

Herodion,  xvi.  1 1  ;  pp.  xxvii ;  xxxIt. 

Herods,  The,  p.  xxi  L 

Hesychins,  p.  IxriiL 

Hilary,  p.  ci. 

Hispalns,  p.  xix. 

History,    St.   Fanl's    Philosophy  o^ 

p.  343  ff. 
Hodge,  Dr.  C,  p.  cvi. 
Hort,  Dr.  F.  J.  A.,  pp.  Ixvi ;  Ixix ; 

Ixxxix ;    xcT ;    165  ;   401 ;   414  L  \ 

430;  429;  433. 
Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  p.  ciL 

Ignatius,  pp.  xxix;  Ixxix;  161  ;  aoo. 
Illyria,  Illyricum,  p.  407  ff. 
Immanence,  The  Divine,  p.  197. 
Imperfect  tense,  ix.  3. 
Infinitive  (cf.  (It  rJ),  i.  10;  iL  ai ; 

xii.  15. 
Integrity  of  the  Epistle,  pp.  Ixxxi  ; 

^  399- 

Interpolations  in  ancient  writers,  p. 

Ixxvi  f. 
Interpretation,  History  of,  pp.  147  fil ; 

369  ff. 
Irenaeus,  p.  xxix. 
Isaac,  pp.  1 1 3  ff. ;  338  ff. 
Isis,  Worship  of,  pp.  xviii ;  xz. 
Israel  (see  Jews,  &c.),  Privileges  o( 
pp.  34 ;  63  ff. ;  68  ff. ;  23a  ;  398. 
Rejection  of,  pp.  338  ff  ;  307  ff.; 

318  ff;  341  f. 
Restoration  of,  p.  318  ff. 
Unbelief  o^  p.  aag  fi. 

Jacob,  ix.  13. 

James,  St,  pp.  3a;  loa  ff.;  i%§. 

Epistle  of,  p.  Ixxvii 
Jason,  p.  xxxviL 

Jerusalem,   Fall  o^  pp.    337 ;   %4fi\ 
38a 
Collection   for   poor    saints   in, 

pp.  xxxvi ;  xciL 
St  Paul's  visit  to,  p.  414  f. 
Jesus  Chkist  (see  'irjaovi  Xpurritf 
Xftardt  'lij<Tovi,  iv  Xptar^). 
Death  of,  pp.  91  ff  ;  160. 
Descent  of,  p.  6  f. 
Teaching  of  (see  Gospels),  p.  37, 
&c 
Jewish  Teaching  (see  'Messianic  In* 
terpretatioD  ')• 


440 


INDEX  TO  THE   NOTES 


fewifb  Teaching  on  Adam's  Fall, 
p.  136  ff. 

on  Atonement,  p.  88. 

00  Circumcision,  p.  108  1 

on  Election,  p.  248  f. 

on  Relation  to  Ciril  Power,  p.  369. 

on  Renovation  of  Nature,  p. 
sioff. 

on  Restoration  of  Israd,  p.  336  L 
Jewi  (see  'Israel'). 

as  critics,  p.  53  ff. 

Failure  of  the,  p.  63  C 

in  Rome,  p.  xviii  f. 

banished  from  Rome,  p.  xm. 

their  organization,  p.  xxii  {. 

their  social  status,  p.  zxr. 

influence  onRoman  Societ7,p.zxT. 

their  migratory  character,  p.  xxtL 

their  turbulence,  p.  xxziiL 

John,  St.,  pp.  91  f. ;  163. 
owett,  Dr.  B.,  p.  criL 
Judaistic  Controversy,  p.  IriL 
Judaizers,  p.  400. 
Jude,  St.,  p.  3a. 

Epistle  of,  p.  Ixziz. 
Judgement,  The  Final,  p.  5]  C 
Julia,  xn.  15  ;  p.  xxxiv. 
Jiilicher,  on  Ephesians,  p.  Iv. 
Julius  Caesar,  relation  t»  the  Jews, 

p.  xix. 
Junia  (or  Junias),  xtL  17 ;  pp.  xxvii ; 

xxxiv. 
Justification  (see  Simuoavrii  9fov,  81- 
Kaiovv,  SiKaiwais,  iiKaivfia),  pp.  30  f.; 
36ff. ; 57;  118 ff. ;  132:138:153; 190. 
and  Sanctiiication,  p.  38. 
Justin  Martyr,  p.  Ixxxiii. 
Javenal,  p.  IIL 

Kautzsch,  Dr.  E.,  pp.  7a ;  307. 
KeUy,  W.,  p.  cvii. 
Kennedy,  Dr.  B.  H.,  p.  333. 
Kenyon,  Dr.  F.  G.,  p.  334. 
Klopper,  Dr.  A.,  p.  62. 
Knowling,  R.  J.,  p.  Ixxzix. 

Laodicea,  p.  zvi. 

Lapide,  Cornelius  a,  pp.  civ ;  15a. 

Latin  Vermon,  The  Old  (Lat.  Vet^, 

i.  30;  iii.  35 ;  v.  3-5,  14;  viii.  36; 

ix.  17;  pp.  Ixvi;  373. 
Law,  Conception  of,  pp.  58  ;  109  ff. ; 

161 ;  343  f. 
and  Grace,  pp.  166  ff.;  176  ff.; 
187  ff. 
Libertini,  pp.  xix ;  xxviii. 
Liddon,  Dr.  H.  P.,  p.  cviii  and  fastim. 


Life,  Idea  of,  vi.  8 ;  vii.  9;  vtiL  €{ 

X.  5  ;  xii.  I. 
Lightfoot,  Bp.,  pp.  Ixxxix ;  xcr  and 

passim. 
Lipsius,  Dr.  R.  A.,  p.  cix  and  passim. 
Literary   History  of  Epistk   to   the 

Romans,  p.  Ixxiv. 
Locke,  John,  p.  cv. 
Loman,  A.  D.,  p.  Ixxxvi. 
Love,  pp.  373  ft;  376  f. 
Lucius,  xvi.  31. 

Luther,  Martin,  p[».  dii ;  4a  ;  If  I. 
Lyons,  p.  sn. 

Maccabees,  The,  p.  xix. 

Mangold,  Dr.  W.,  pp.  xzzii ;  actii ; 

399;  417. 
Manuscripts,  p.  bdii  L 
Marcion,  pp.  Ixxxiii;  as;  scri ;  38; 

55;    83;    179;    180;   190;    aa6: 

339  ;  366 ;  384- 
Mark,  St,  p.  xxix. 
Marriage,  Law  o^  p.  170  C 
Martial,  p.  liL 
MartyroUiinm   ffiirom/miammmf  p^ 

XXX. 

Mary  (Miriam),  pp.  xxxiv ;  xxxv. 
Mayor,  Dr.  J.  B.,  p.  Ixxvii. 
Melanchthon,  Philip,  p.  eiii. 
Merit,  pp.  81 ;  86 ;  94  ff. ;  97  ft  ;  345  ; 

330  ff- 
Messiah,  Coming  of  the,  pp.  6a ;  188 ; 

307 ;  387  £  ;  396  ;  336  £  ;  379  £ 
Messianic    Interpretation    of   O.  T., 

pp.  281  f.;  387  f.;  396;  306;  336. 
Meyer,  Dr.  H.  A.  W.,  p.  cvi    and 

passim. 
Michelsen,  J.  H.  A.,  p.  IxzxriiL 
Minucius  Felix,  p.  liv. 
Mithras,  p.  xviii. 
MosquensiSf  Codtx,  p.  Lnr. 
Moule,  H.  C.  G.,  p.  cviM. 

Naasseni,  p.  Ixxxii. 

Naber,  S.  A.,  p.  IxxxvL 

Narcissus,  xvi.  1 1 ;  p.  xxxiv  L 

Natural  Religion,  pp.  39  ff. ;  {4. 

Nereus,  xvi.  5. 

Nero,  The  Quinqumnimm  of,  p.  xiv. 

Character  of  his  reign,  p.  xv. 

Law  and  Police  under  him,  p.  xvi 
Neutral  Text,  p.  IxxL 
Novatian,  p.  liL 

Objections,   Treatment    of,    ^    09; 

7^  ;  98;  a63;  a93J  ^9k- 
Occumeoiust  p. «. 


i.     SUBJECTS 


Ml 


Oehler.  Dr.  G.  F,  p.  318. 
Old  Testament,  Use  of  the,  pp.  77 ; 
364 ;  288  f.  ;  302  ff. ;  396. 
Collections     of     extracts     from, 
pp.  264  ;  283. 
Oltramare,  Hugues,  p.  cviii. 
01)mipas,  xvi.  15. 
Origen,  p.  xcix  and  passim. 
Original  Sin,  p.  137. 
Ostian  way,  The,  p.  xxiz. 

Paganism,  p.  49  ff. 

Paley.W.,  p.  413. 

Parous! a,  The,  p.  SJjti. 

Participle,   Force   of,  !▼.   l8 ;  ▼.   I ; 

ix.  33. 
Passive  Obedience,  p.  37a. 
Pa/irunsis,  Codex,  p.  Ixv. 
Patriarchs,  Testament*  of  the  Twelve, 

p.  Ixxxii. 
Patrobas,  xvi.  14. 
Patron,  p.  417! 
Pattison,  Mark,  p.  60. 
Paul,  St.  (see 'St.  James,'  'St  John,' 
'St.  Jnde,"St.  Peter'). 

Collection  of  his  Epistles,  p.  budx. 

Conversion  of,  p.  186. 

Conrtesj  of,  pp.  ai ;  403. 

Death  of,  p.  xxxi. 

Grief  o^  over  Israel,  pp.  a  35 ; 
337. 

Temsalem  visits,  p.  xlii. 

Joame3rs  o(  pp.  zxxvi  if. ;  407  ff. ; 

413  a 
Penetrating  insight  o(,pf.  a6t; 

103;  186. 
Philosophy   of  History    of,    p. 

343  ff. 
Plans  of,  pp.  zxxvi  ff. ;    19  ff- ; 

410  ff. 
Roman  citizenship,  p.  xiv. 
Rome  and  its  influence  on,  pp.  xiii ; 

xviii. 
Style  ot  p.  liv. 

Temperament  and  character,p.lix. 
Paulas  EpiscopuB,  p.  Ixxxviii. 
Pedanius  Secundus,  p.  xvii. 
Pelagius,  p.  ci. 

Perfect  tense,  v.  a ;  ix.  19 ;  xvi.  7. 
Persis,  xvi.  1 2 ;  p.  xxxv. 
Peshitto  Version,  The,  p.  IxviL 
Peter,  St. 

Death  of,  p.  xxxii. 

Roman  Church  and,  pp.  xxviii  ff. ; 

Ixxvi. 
His  twenty-five  years'  episcopate, 

P    XXX. 


Peter,  First  Epistle  of,  p.  Ixzivft 

Pharaoh,  ix.  17. 

Philo,  Embassy  to  Rome,  p.  zs, 

Philologns,  xvi.  15  ;  p.  xxxiv  t 

Phlegon,  xvi.  14. 

Phoebe,  xvi.  I ;  p.  xxxvi. 

Pierson,  A.,  p.  Ixxxvi. 

Plumptre,  Dean,  pp.  430 ;  436. 

Polycarp,  Epistle  of,  pp.  Ixxix;  J71. 

Pompeius  Magnus,  p.  xix. 

Pomponia  Graecina,  pp.  xviii;  zxii; 


Poor,  Contiibutions  for  the,  pp. 

xcii ;  41 2  f. 
Poppaea  Sabina,  p.  xviii. 
Porpkyrianus ,  Codex,  p.  Ixv. 
Porta  Portiunsis,  Jewish  cemetery  at, 

p.  XX. 

Portus,  Jewish  cemetery  at,  p.  xx. 

Predestination  (see  '  Election,'  *  Re- 
sponsibility •),  p.  347  ff. 

Prisca  (Priscilla :  see '  Aquila  *),  xvL  J. 

Priscillae  coetneterium,  p.  419. 

Promise,  Conception  e^  pp.  6;  iSj 
109  ff. 

Propitiation,  pp.  9a ;  94;  139! 

Proselytes,  p.  xxv. 

Provinces  under  Nero,  p.  xr. 

Pythagoreans,  p.  400. 

QminqMemUum  of  Nero,  p.  shr. 

Ramsay,   W.  M.,    pp.    zhr;   zsvifi} 

xxxi. 
Reconciliation,  Idea  of,  p.  139!. 
Reformation  Theology,  The,  pp.  cttf 

15a;  373  f- 
Regeneration,  p.  185  C 
Reiche,  p.  xcv. 
Remnant,  Doctrine  of  tfa^  ppw  ]ol  I 

316  ff. 
Renan,  E.,  pp.  xcii ;  411. 
Kendall,  F.,  p.  xxxviiL 
Resch,  Dr.  A.,  p.  383. 
Resurrection,  p.  335  f. 

of  Christ,  pp.  113  ffl;  ll6Cj  IMi 
Revelation  (cf.  a9'o«dAv^),pp.39&; 

4a. 
Riddell,  Mr.  James,  p.  191. 
Righteousness,  p.  a8  ff. 

of  God,  pp.  34  ff. ;  134  ft 
Roman  Church,  pp.  xzv ;  18  £  {  ||#| 
401 1 ;  404. 

Composition  of,  p.  xxzL 

Creed  ol,  p.  liiL 

Government,  pp.  xxxv;  37^ C 

Greei..  character  of,  p.  liL 


443 


INDEX   TO  THE   NOTES 


Roman  Chnrch  {(tntinutd) — 

Mixed  character  of,  p.  xxxiv. 

Origin  of,  pp.  xiv  ;  IxxvL 

Status  and  condition  of,  p.  xxxiv. 
Roman  citizenship,  St.  Paal'i,  p.  xir. 
Roman  Empire,  p.  xiv. 
Romans,  Epistle  to  the. 

Analysis  of,  p.  xlviL 

Argument  of,  p.  xliv. 

Ephesians  compared  with,  (w  hr. 

Integrity  of,  p.  Ixxxv. 

Language  and  Style  of,  lii. 

literary  History  of,  p.  Ixxiy. 

Occasion  of,  p.  xxxviii. 

Place    of,   in    Pauline    Epistles, 
p.  Ixxxir. 

Purpose  of,  p.  xxxiz. 

Text  of,  p.  Ixii. 

Time  and  place  of,  p.  xzrrL 
Rome  in  A.D.  58,  p.  xiii  flf. 

Influence  of,  on  St.  Paul,  pp.  xiii ; 
XX  vi. 
Ralus,  xvi.  13  ;  pp.  xxyU;  xxxIt. 
Ruskin,  Mr.,  p.  93. 

Sacrifice  of  Christ,  pp.  91  flF. ;    119; 

132. 

Sacrifices,  the  Levitical,  pp.  9a  ;  I  a  a. 

Sahidic  Version,  p.  Ixvii. 

Salvation,  pp.  33  f. ;  15a  f. 

Sanctification,  pp.  38;  15a. 

Sangermatunsis ,  Codex,  p.  Ixix. 

Satan,  p.  145. 

Schader,  Dr.  E.,  p.  117. 

Schaefer,  Dr.  A.,  p.  cix. 

Scholasticism,  pp.  37  ;  118;  I  a 3. 

Schnltr,  Dr.  H.,  p.  14. 

Schurer,  Dr.  £.,  p.  xviii  and  /misim. 

Scrivener,  Dr.  F.  H.  A.,  p.  IxtIL 

Sedulius  Scotus,  p.  IxIt. 

Seneca,  p.  xvii. 

Septuagint,/ajji>»». 

Silvanus,  p.  xxix. 

Sin,  pp.  130  ff  ;  136  ff. ;  I43ff. ;  176  ff. 

Sinaiticus,  Codex,  pp.  Ixii ;  Ixvii. 

Slavery  in  Rome,  p.  xviii. 

Smeiid,  Dr.  R.,  p.  39. 

Smith,  Dr.  W.   Robertaon,  pp.   14; 

317  f- 
Society,  the  Christian,  pp.  laa  f. ;  355. 
Sohm,  Dr.  R.,  p.  15. 
Sonship,  p.  30I  ff. 
Sosi pater,  p.  xxxviL 
Spain,  XV.  34,  38. 
Speculum,  The,  p.  ia4. 
Spirit,  The  Holy,  pp.  i89ff. ;  196  L; 

199  C 


Spiritual  gifts,  pp.  si ;  358  ft 
Stachys,  xvi.  9 ;  p.  xxvii. 
Steck,  Rudolph,  p.  IxxxvL 
Stichi  {arixoi),  p.  Ivi  L 
Stoicism,  p.  xtL 
Stuart,  Moses,  p.  ctL 
Suetonius,  p.  xxL 
Suillins,  p.  xvi. 

Swete,  Dr.  H.  B.,  p.  7 ;  17 ;  ssi. 
Syriac  Versions,  p.  Ixxi  f. 

Terminology,  Theological,  p.  17. 

Tertius,  xvi.  a  a. 

TertuUian,  p.  xxix. 

Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs 

p.  Ixxxii  and/oJxiM. 
Text  of  the  Epistle,  p.  Ldii. 

New     nomenclature     saggested, 
p.  Ixxi. 
Theodoret,  pp.  c ;  i\^  waA  fassim. 
Theophanes,  p.  cix. 
Theophylact,  p.  c. 
Thessalonians,  Epp.  to,  p.  bdL 
Tholuck,  F.  A.  G.,  p.  cr. 
Timotheus,  xvi.  3i ;  p.  xxzriL 
Toy,  Prof  C.  H.,  p.  306 1 
Trent,  Council  of,  p.  153. 
Trinity,    Doctrine    of  the,   pp.    i( , 

aoo ;  340. 
Tryphaena,  xvi.  la  ;  p.  xxxr. 
Tryphosa,  xvi.  i  a  ;  p.  xxxr. 
Turpie,  Mr.  D  M'^Calnun,  p.  307. 
Tyndale,  pp.  65 ;   175;  194;  393. 

Union  with  Christ,  pp.  117;  153 ff.; 

163  ff. 
Urbanus,  xtL  9 ;  pp.  xxvii ;  xxxir. 

Valentinians,  p.  IxxxiL 
Van  Manen,  W.  C,  p.  IxxxrlL 
Vatican  Hill,  The,  p.  xxix. 
Vaiicaniu,   Codex,  pp.  Ixiii ;    Ixviii  , 

Ixxiii. 
Vaughan,  Dr.  C.  J.,  p.  criL 
Vegetarians,  pp.  385  ;  401  £ 
Versions,  p.  Ixvi. 
Vicarious  suffering,  p.  93. 
Victor,  Bishop,  p.  lii. 
Vipsanins  Terenas,  p.  Xf. 
Voelter,  Dr.  D.,  p.  Ixxxrtt. 

Weak,  The,  pp.  383  ff. ;  399!. 
Weber,  Dr.  F.,  p.  7  and  passim, 
Weber,  Dr.  V.,  p.  375. 
Weiss,  Dr.  Bemhard,  pp.  zl ;  cr'* 
Wcisse,  C.  H.,  p.  Ixxxvu 
Westcott,  Bishop,  pp.  93 ;   i  S9. 


II.    LATIN   WORDS 


443 


Western  Text,  The,  p.  Ixxi  ff. 
Wctstein,  J.  T.,  p.  cr. 
Weymouth,  Dr.  R.  F.,  p.  414. 
Wiclif,  pp.  9;  175;  194. 
Wordsworth,  Dr.  Christopher,  p.  eviL 


Works,  pp.  57 ;  loa ;  175  f. 
Wrath  of  God,  pp.  47  ;  117. 

Zahn,  Dr.  Theodor,  p.  IzJOCV. 
Ziegler,  L.,  p.  Ixvi. 


II.  Latin  Words. 


amguttia,  ^  tf. 
cari/as,  pp.  114;  37f. 
definitut,  p.  8. 
deputatus,  p.  sat. 
dtstinatuSf  pw  8. 
diisctiSt  pp.  114;  17^ 


iugulatiCf  p.  a  at. 
mcrti/uari,  p.  aat. 
perficio,  pp.  58;  ia4. 
perpetro,  p.  58. 
pressura,  pp.  571  I S^ 
vutiwia,  p.  a  2  a. 


III.  Greek  Words. 

[This  if  m  Index  to  the  Notes  and  not  a  Concordance ;  sometimes  however, 
where  it  is  desirable  to  illustrate  a  particular  usage,  references  are  given  to 
passages  which  are  not  directly  annotated  in  the  Commentary.  The  oppor- 
tunity is  also  taken  to  introduce  occasional  references  to  two  works  which 
appeared  too  late  for  use  in  the  Commentary,  N^otes  on  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
from  unpublished  Comnuntaries  (including  the  first  seven  chapters  of  the 
Romans)  by  Bp.  Lightfoot,  and  Bibelstiidien  by  G.  Adolf  Deissiiiann  (Mar- 
burg, 1895).  Some  especially  of  the  notes  on  worda  in  the  former  work 
attain  to  classical  value  (070601  and  St'/fotoj,  dva/ft^aAatoCaSai,  hipwviov),  and 
the  latter  brings  to  bear  much  new  illustrative  matter  from  the  Flinders  Petrie 
and  other  papyri  and  from  inscriptions.  In  some  instances  the  new  material 
adduced  has  led  to  a  confirmation,  while  in  others  it  might  have  led  to  a 
modification  of  the  views  expressed  in  the  Commentary.  We  cannot  however 
include  under  this  latter  head  the  somewhat  important  differences  in  regard  to 
^iHMovv  and  KaraWdafftiv.  Bp.  Lightfoot 's  view  of  SiKoiovy  in  particular 
seems  to  ns  less  folly  worked  oat  than  was  usual  with  him.] 


•Aj3/3a,  viii.  15. 

afivaaot,  x.  7. 

ir^oBoSf  T.  7  (-Lft.)  ;  ri  dYotfdr,  xiiL 

4 ;  xiv.  16 ;  xr.  a. 
ir^/aJ&aiawrf,  xr.  14. 
difaTTaVf  xiii.  8,  9. 
ir^-rr),    ▼.   5,   8;    xiL    9;    xiiL   10; 

XV.  30 ;  pp.  374  ff. :  c£.  Deissmann, 

p.  8of. 
SiYffXoi,  viii  38, 
ayia<Tfj.6s,  vi,  19. 
liyios,  i.  7 ;  sL  i<;  xfi.  i,  i| ;  xvL  t, 

»4. 


iytaxrivri,  i.  4. 

dyvoeiy,  x.  3  ;  xi.  35. 

aypiiKaios,  xi.  1 7. 

dSe\(p6s,  X.  I :  c£  Deissmann,  p.  8a  f 

aSiKia,  i.  18,  39;  iii.  5. 

dSoKifxci,  i.  a8. 

ddvvaTos,  viii.  3. 

diStos,  i.  ao. 

alfta,  iii.  25  ;  pp.  91  £,  iif, 

aiajv,  xii.  a. 

inadapaia,  vi.  I9. 

dKOTj,  X.  16. 

uKpoar'^s,  iL  13. 


444 


INDEX  TO  THE   NOTES 


outpo$v(fT(a,  ii.  17. 
iX-Tidua,  i.  25  ;  UL  & 
i\.r}OT}i,  iii.  4. 
liAAd  ^iyoj,  x.  18,  19. 
dWaaffttv  iv,  i,  33. 
dXAdrpjoi,  XT.  SO. 
a/ia,  iii.  13. 

afMpTav€iv,y.  la,  13;  vL  15 ;  p.  144. 
afxdpTTjfua,  iii.  25. 
d/iapria,  iii.  25  ;  v.  13;  p.  143  f. 
4,  V.  la  ;  vi.  6,  7,  10  ;  Tii.  8. 
dfi*rafti\TiTos,  xi.  29. 

Ul'4/9CUI'C(*',  X.   6. 

di'd7»j»',  X.  6. 

auti^v,  vii.  9, 

ayiOffM,  ix.  3. 

dfcuKatVojo'it,  xiL  t. 

dvaKfipaKaicvffOcu,    xiii.    9:     cf.     Lft. 

J\^o/es,  p.  3ai  fc 
d»'aAo7«a,  xii.  6. 
dfawoKoyTjTos,  i.  ao ;  tt.  i . 
di'aarcuTtt,  i.  4  ;  p.  18. 
dvt^fpfvvrjTos,  xi.  33. 
avOpa^,  xii.  20. 
dj'^pwjTij'oc  >.(yM,  yL  I9. 
ayOpomos.  ix.  ao. 

6  <<rcy,  vii.  a  a. 

(}  »raA.a<dr,  n.  6 ;  pp.  17  a,  1 74. 
ivofiia,  vi.  19. 
di/oxi?,  ii.  4. 
4»^airo5o/ia,  xi   9. 
ivTirAaafffOat,  xiiL  a. 
avvn6nptTos,  xii.  9. 
d^<or  .  .  .  npos,  viii.  18. 
d^/<«y,  xvi.  a. 

^"■opxy.  viii-  as ;  «•  16  ;  rri  §. 
d7r€«5e'xfff^a't  viii.  19. 
dniarla,  iiriaTfty,  iii.  3. 
dwAoTT;!,  xii.  8. 

dird,  i.  20 ;  dni  p,ipovs,  XT.  I5. 
dwo0o\^,  xi.  14. 
dvo6vT]ffic(ii',  vi.  7,  10. 
dvoKoKtinrfffOat,  i.  1 8. 
diroicdAv^is,  viii.  19. 
inoKapaSoKia,  viii.  19. 
diroAa/<)3dre(i',  i.  27. 
d7ro\vTptuais,  iii.   34 :  c£  Lft.  a/  4k. 

and  p.  316. 
dir6(TToKos,  i.  I  ;  xvi.  7 ;  p.  18. 
diroTiOeaOcu,  xiii.  la. 
dvoToKfidi' ,  X.  ao. 
dnd/Kfia,  ix.  22. 

apa  ovy,  v.  18  ;  vii.  35 ;  is.  i(,  ll. 
dpioKuv,  XV.  I. 
"/'X'7.  viii.  38. 
dai/Sfia,  i.  181. 
iatfiifs,  iv.  f . 


i<ri\y«ia,  xiii.  13. 
d(70(Vf(a,  vL  19 ;  viiL  lit. 
doOtvtiy,  xiv.  I. 
dtrflevijj,  V.  6. 
'Kaia,  xvi.  5. 
d<Tiroi'5oj,  i.  31  (▼,  L). 
&<Tvy(TOf,  i.  31. 
dT<^^€a^(u,  i.  34. 
atrrdy,  i.  24 ;  ix.  3  ;  xr.  14, 
aiiTov  (emphatic),  iii.  14. 
[avTov,  i.  24.] 
d(popi(ftv,  i.  I  ;  p.  ll. 
dipopfiij,  vii.  8. 
'Axafa^  xvi.  5  (v.  L). 
iXptiovaOai,  iii.  la. 

BdoX,  ij,  xi.  4. 
^dOos,  viii.  39  ;  xi.  j|. 
0anrl(tff6at  (It,  vi.  3. 
&Ap0apos,  i.  14. 
^(T(X(ta  ToC  0(oC,  xiv.  ly. 
^offiXevfii',  V.  14,  17 ;  vi  It, 
Paari^fiy,  xv.  i. 
^SeXtiaataOai,  iL  as. 
;3^^a,  xiv.  10. 
^KuffcpTififiaOai,  xiv.  iC 
fiovKtjua,  ix.  19. 
l&ov\onni,  p.  1 8 a.] 
hpSicis,  xiv.  17. 

7«7««'^fftfoi,  XT.  8. 

yiyova,  ii.  25  ;  xvi.  7. 

ytyoiro,  /*^,  iii.  4;  jd.  I,  II. 

yivtaOai,  i.  3  ;  iii.  4. 

yiyii/ffKuv,  ii.  a;  tL  <;  vM.  I,   l| 

[viii.  29]. 
yvSiaii,  xv.  14. 
TfoxTTdi*,  rd,  L  19. 
ypdnfio,  viL  6. 
ypa(p^,  i  a;  p.  18:   c£  Ddssaaua, 

p.  109. 

Si,  iii.  aa;  ix.  30;  iL  I). 

2cr,  viii  a6. 

8(d,  i.  8  ;  ii.  37 ;  iiL  35,  a9 ;  iv.  II, 

as;  xiv.  ao;  p.  119. 
9t'  iavTov,  xiv.  14. 
Sia&^icT),  ix.  4. 
Siawovcfc,  XV.  35. 
Sia/toy'ia,  xii.  7. 
SioKovos,  XV.  8  ;  xvL  I. 
SiaKpivfffOat,  iv.  ao ;  xir.  t^ 
State ptais.  xiv.  I. 
5<aAo7<(r/^uf,  i.  ai ;  xir.  i. 
SiaaroKi),  x.  la. 
diatpepovra,  ri,  iL  18  [^Lft.^ 
ItJotfxaAia,  XT.  4. 


in.    GREEK  WORDS 


44' 


liaBx*,  tL  17 ;  vrL  17. 

MpxtnOat,  T.  11. 

iiKaioKfHala,  y.  5. 

SUcmos,  L  17 ;  Hi.  36;  ▼.  7 ;  p.  18  £ 

SucaioffiiyTI,  pp.  a8  ff.,  39a. 

Huttuooivri  9to9  (1)  Six.  rov  6«ov),  L 

17;  ia.  15,  Ji,  25;  X.  3;  p.  34ff- 
hKcuow,  iiKaiovaOM,  ii.  13  ;  lii.  4,  ao, 

t6,  a8;   W.   5;    vi.   »;    viii.  30; 

pp.  30 1.  (otherwise  Ln. ;  lee  how* 

ever  hit  remariu  00  i(ioiy,  JViftes, 

p.  105)- 
ilKcJmfta,  L  it;  ▼.  16,  18;  viiL  4; 

p.  31  (cf.  Lft.  p.  igi), 
Sutaluou,    iv.    15;    T.    it;   n^    3'> 

147  ft 
9i6,  ziiL  5 ;  xt.  »t. 
ttiri,  i.  10 ;  iii.  aa 
SiXOirraauu,  xvL  17. 
Stimuy,  ix.  30;  zii.  14. 
8o«i/((iC«r,  i.  a8;  iL  18 ;  siL  t. 

«0««M,  T.  4. 

86£a,  L  S3 ;  ill.  S3 ;  T.  a ;  tL  4 ;  viii. 

18,  SI ;  ix.  4;  XT.  7|  svL  a7. 
So(i(a),  L  ai ;  viii.  30;  sL  I};  a?.  9. 
tovXtiOf  viii.  15,  ai. 
SovAoff,  L  I ;  p.  18. 
96raiut,  i.  4,  16 ;  viii  |t. 
SfuraaOcUj  xvL  a|. 
Swarui',  xiT.  4. 
Svcar^,  zii.  18I 

Scaped,  T.  If. 


fYMrrpcff,  xi.  17. 

iyxSirrtty,  xv.  as. 

ISoAiovffar,  iii.  13. 

I0v%  i.  5  ;  ii.  14  ;  Ix.  30. 

tlyt,  V.  6  (▼.  1.) ;  [iii  30]. 

tlKiw,  viii.  a9, 

rfvcp,  iii.  30. 

cfiwf ,  i.  10 ;  xi.  14. 

flp'fivij,  i  ?;  V.  I ;  viii.  6;  xiT.   17; 

»▼•  i3»  33  ;  xvi.  ao;  p,  18. 
•b,  ii.  36  ;   iv.  3 ;   viii.  18 ;  xi.  36 ; 

XV.  a6  (cf.  Deissmaim,  p.  113  ff.). 
dt  T<5  with  inf.,  i.  11,  ao  (otixerwise 

Lft.);  iv.  II,  16,  18. 
•&.  o,  T.  15,  17  ;  ix.  10. 

U,  ii.  8   (cf.  lit);   iii.  a6,  30  (cf. 

lit.)  ;  iv.  14,  16;  si.  36;  xiL  18. 
imbiKos,  xiii.  4. 
ivci,  ix.  36. 
btrnKSff  xi.  17. 


l«/rXi7<r(a,  xvl.  5,  l€;  p.  If. 

ixicKlvfiy,  xvi.  17. 

l«A.(ArT(ir,  viii.  33;  xtL  13 ;  p.  4. 

i«Xo7i^,  xi.  7,  38. 

mr'    inKoy^v,    fau    II  {    >L     5 
p.  350. 
ttcviwrtir,  ix.  6. 
iicxvvuv,  V,  5. 
lA.a<ro'a»',  ix.  la. 
iKtay,  ix.  15  ;  xiL  1. 
(Kfv6fpla,  viii.  ai. 
'EK\7]y,  L  14. 

lAA.07(r<r^at  (lAA»70ff5oi),  t.  t). 
IXir/r,  T.  4 ;  viii.  34 ;  xii.  i  a ;  xv.  4, 

13- 

tr,  L  18  (otherwise  Lft.),  19,  33 ;  iL 
a,    35 ;  XT.  6 :   c£   Deissmaim,  p. 

iv  Kvpi<p,  xvi.  13. 

tr  Kvpiq>  Ttjffov,  xiv.  1 4. 

Ik  XpiffT^,  ix.  I  ;  xvi.  7. 

iy  Xpiar^  'Iriaov,  iii.  34 ;  vi.  II. 

jy  (rap/ic/,  viii.  9. 

iv  itvtvuari,  viii.  9. 

ky  ^,  viii.  3. 
IvSctxi'vcrdai,  iL  15:  ix.  17,  St. 
iyi(i(ts,  iii.  35,  36. 
ifSvca/iovcr&oi,  iv.  30. 
ivoiKeiv,  vii.  17  ;  viii.  11. 
iyroK^i,  viL  8. 
irrvyx&vfiy,  xL   s :    cf.    Deismumn, 

p.  117  f. 
I^avarav,  vii.  II. 
i(ffflpuy,  ix.  17. 
((oftoXoffiaOcu,  xiv.  II. 
i(ovffla,  ix.  31  ;  xiii.  i. 
lva77(X{a,  iv.   13;    ix.   4,  8}    p>   ll 

(cf.  Lft.  on  iv.  ai). 
fwcuvoi,  ii.  39. 
4irai<Tx«5»'*ff^a«,  i.  16, 
fwcwa/xifivTjffKfiy,  xv.  I5. 
(iraraTravcff^ai,  ii.  1 7. 
ivfl,  iii.  6. 
Ivi,  i.  9,  II ;  iv.  18 ;  v.  s ;  viii.  so 

l^'y,  V.   13. 

ini-ivoHTis,  i.  38 ;  iii.  so;  x.  2. 

iviOvpitiv,  (iriOvpua,  vii.  7  ;  p.  37$. 

tiriKaKuaOai,  x.  IS,  13,  I4. 

Ivt/itytty,  xi.  a  a. 

Jn-iFo9crv,  i.  II. 

ivinoOia,  xv.  a). 

iviffriiios,  xvi.  7. 

IvtrcXciV,  XV.  a8. 

tvifipeiv,  iii.  5. 

liroFo/Ki^<a9a(,  ii.  17. 

tpyoy,  rd  cpyor,  iL  15;  xiiL  |;  bHr 


446 


INDEX  TO  THE  NOTES 


ipttt  otr,  Ix.  19 ;  si.  19. 

tI  ipovfitv,  iii.  5. 

tI  olv  Ipovfitv,  W.  I)  tL  l{  vli. 
7  ;  yiii.  ji ;  is.  14. 
ipiOfta,  ii.  8. 
iaeifiv,  xiv.  2,  3,  6w 
irtpot,  vii.  23. 
Iti,  iii.  7  ;  v.  6;  Ix.  19. 
*iayyf\i^(a9cu,  x.  15;  p.  g£ 
«iaYfi\iov,  i.  1 ;  x.  i6 ;  xi.  a8 ;  pw  18. 
fvayy(\t6v  fiov,  ii.  16;  XtI.  95. 
tvaptaros,  xii.  I. 
f vSo/rfrc,  XV.  a6  £ 
(vSoKia,  X.  I. 
tuXo^tf;'.  xii.  14. 
tiiKofTiTds,  L  as ;  ix.  g ;  pi.  136 :  et 

Lft.,  p.  310. 
9v\oyia,  xv.  39;  xri.  18. 
fvoSovaOat,  i.  lo  (  =  Lft.). 
fvpiaKfiv,  iv.  I  (t.  1. ;  on  the  reading 

see  also  Lft). 
tvxfffOai,  ix.  3. 
(<pditcL(,  vi.  10. 
tip'  ^,  V.  12. 

Ix«»'.  i-  38  ;  ir.  i{  ▼.  i,  a  («Iit). 
ix^pos,  p.  ia9f, 

C^cic,  xii.  II. 

C^\0S,  X.   3. 

C^",  vii.  9  (c£  Lft.)}  a.  f ;   sii.  i; 

xiv.  9. 
C<u^,  viii.  6  ;  xL  15. 
^ouoiroicrr,  iv.  17* 

f ,  iii.  39 ;  xi  9. 

^  dyvouTf,  vi.  })  trfl.  I. 

^  /cat,  ii.  15. 

jroi  .  . .  ^,  vi.  16. 
f|8)7,  i.  10;  xiii,  lu 
ilXf  (ar,  xi.  3. 
i^^f/Mi,  ii.  5. 
ijTTtjfta,  xL  It. 

BAfOTot,    6,    r.    la,    II ;    vL    I,    4 

(  =  Lft.") ;  viL  14. 
BavarovcrOaif  vii.  4. 
BtiSrrfi,  i.  30. 
*«X«ii',  vii.  15  ;  ix.  16. 
eiKrjua,  t6,  i.  lO ;  iL  i8  ;  xfi.  I. 
0(H(\iov,  XV.  30. 
e€<5s,  p   337.  ^ 

e«os  naxTip,  L  7  ;  p.  18. 
$(oaTvyrji,  L  30  (cf.  Lft.). 
»ijpa,  xi.  9. 
fAii/'ir,  ii.  9  ;  ▼.  3  ;  viiL  35  ;  xJL  it. 


•of^,  a.  8. 

ivela,  xii.  I. 

ftiot,   viiL    3a;    B.   |t    M 

Deiisnumn,  p.  laoL 
UpoffvK*i^,  ii.  aa. 
ttpovpTfur,  XV.  16. 
"If/wi/aaXi?/!,  XT.  19. 
Irjoovt  XpifTOt,  i.   I  I  pp.  t  C  'S  'U 

160  £ 
Uaf6t,  XV.  33  (v.  L). 
tkaarfipior,    iii.    35;    pp.    9a,    130. 

comp.  Lit.  and  Deisamann,  p.  i  a  i  ff. 
*l\Xvpuc6y,  XV.  19. 
Iko,  v.  ao;  xL  II. 
I6t,  iii.  1 3. 

'lovSaiot,  ii.  17,  a9;  p.  ttf. 
*I<7/>a^\,  ix.  6. 
*lapariXlTtp,  ix.  4 ;  p.  64. 
lar&vai,  iii.  31 ;  idT.  4. 

KaS^Kom,  Tti,  i.  slL 

MaOiardyai,  v.  1 9. 

«a0o,  viii.  a6. 

sadopaf,  i.  ao. 

Kaip6s,  iii.  a6  ;  xiL  II  (t.  L);  xiiL  it, 

Kard  Kcup6r,  card  rii^  »up6ff  v, 
6;  ix.  9. 
Kaxia,  i.  39. 
Kaxo>7d(ia,  L  39. 
«oA€r»',  iv.  17  ;  vliL  30;  ix.  y. 
Kci\m,  xi.  ao. 
Kap^la,  i.  ai. 

Kapwo(pop(iv,  vii.  4  (otherwiae  Lft.). 
carci,  ii.  5  ;  viii.  37  ;  xL  aS;  xr.f. 

Ka0'  tis,  xii.  5. 

car'  otKoy,  xvL  §. 
car<i7(ii',  x.  6. 
aarataxvyftv,  v.  3  ;  ix.  |^ 
KaraKavxaaOaif  S.  18. 
mirajcpifui,  viiL  I. 
garaKpiytiy,  viiL  3. 
KarakiXot,  L  30. 
KaraKapL^iytiv,  ix.  30. 
caroAAaT^,  v.  1 1 ;  iL  1^ 
KaraWaaattP,  T.  10). 
KaroAi/ttc,  xiv.  ao. 
Karavofiy,  iv.  I9. 
/rardia>£it,  xL  8. 

«arap7»'V,  iii.  3,  31  |  vL  (  ;  vfl.  t*  4, 
Karapri^fiy,  ix.  aa. 
Karacppovfiv,  ii.  4. 
caTcVavrj,  iv.  It. 
icaTfpya((aO<u,  li.  9  ;  viL  13. 
MaTfx*iy,  KaTix*o$<Uf  L  18  (otherwtM 

LfL) ;  vii.  6. 
Ha-nfyopHv,  ii.  If. 


Ul.    GREEK   WORDS 


447 


aa»jfla$<u,  ▼.  f,  II. 
MavxoffM,  H.  ly. 

mauxfau,  t.  j ;  wr,  17. 

K(<yXP«>i*  xvl.  I. 

K^ipvyfta,  xvL  Sf. 

Kt)fwff<rttr,  X.  14,  If. 

Kiviwoi,  Tiii.  )$. 

«X(i2oT,  zL  16. 

M\rjpoy6ttos,  hr.  I|,  I4 }  vfB.  17. 

KXijau,  zL  a9. 

«X7rdf,  i.  I,  6. 7 ;  vUL  at ;  p^  It. 

MKijril  4rfla,  p^  111 
MXifMf  XT.  33. 
mtAia,  ztL  18. 
«oir^,  zir.  14. 
KotvejTHv,  ziL  If ;  a*.  •!• 
Koivtjrla,  xf.  a6. 
•o/n;,  zilL  l«. 

«o/nfr  lywCt  fat*  Mk 
KowiSf,  ziri.  6. 
K6<riwt,  4,  UL  6 ;  ▼.  la. 
gpivur,  ttfirtcdai,  tit  4 ;  ziv.  (,  l). 
rr<<r»,  i.  ao ;  viii.  19,  at,  39. 
kvk\^,  zt.  19. 
mpitvtiv,  tL  9. 
Kv/Mot,  L  4,  7 ;  m.  la,  i| ;  Btt.  II ; 

xiv.  8  ;  ZT.  6;  pk  iS. 
Kv^ior,  ziT.  14. 

kaXtir,  UL  19. 
Ka6t,  zL  I. 
Karptioj  iz.  4:  ift.  1. 
Xarpciicir,  L  9. 
X^xayo,  ziz.  a. 
Kiytiy,  iii.  lo. 

dXA.d  x/tw,  X.  iS,  19. 

Kiyw  <^,  XL.  I,  II. 
Kttftfta,  zL  5. 

kHTovprfttv,  pw    a«:  ci.  Dulawwiiii, 

KtiTovprfSs,  ziiL  %;  xr.  16. 

K6yta  ri,  iiL  a. 

kayiCtaOai,  viii.  18 ;  xir.  14. 

\oyiCf(T0cu  di,  ii.  a6  i  hr.  ^ 
Xo^urot,  zii.  I. 
KoyKX/jids,  iL  i§. 
k&yos,  iii.  4 ;  iz.  €. 
Xinr«ra0a«,  zIt.  If. 
X^,  iz.  a. 

itamipun,  W.  7,  8 1  xiv.  tai 

fMMapifffji6s,  It.  6. 
ftoucpoOvfjua,  iL  4. 
Mapta  (Mapwi/i),  ztL  <  (v.  L). 
tiMfrvfir,  iii.  ai;  x.  a. 


/«rrac^n;t,  tUL  aci 
l»aLTaiov(r9<u,  L  SI. 
>4(ix<Mpa,  Tiii.  3f. 
lUl^w,  iz.  IS. 
niXXtiv,  Tiii.  18. 
ftiWotr,  d,  T.  14. 
ftir,  X.  I. 

^ir  oZv,  zi.  If  ;  pk  |t^ 

ntvowft,  iz.  ao;  a.  mL 
ftivtiv,  iz.  II. 
fuarSi,  i.  2g  ;  xt.  I4. 
fttraSiSovai,  xii.  8. 
intra fiop<povaOai,  zii.  a. 

/iCTO^v  (iXX^Aov,  iL  If. 
frtk  ii.  14;   IiL   5;  iT.   19;  hu   14; 
z.  10. 

fLi)  yhotrmf  iiL  4t  Ix.  14;  xi.  I, 
II. 
fiJtvm,ix.  II. 
Iiftia,  ziL  IS  (t.  ty. 
li6ros,  xvi.  a6. 
/i4$p^«KTit,  it  ao. 
ftvvrfipiov,  zL  a5 ;  ztL  af. 

r««p<$»,  L  4  (cf.Lft) ;  Tiii.  10 ;  xL  If. 

U  vtKpSiv,  Ti.  13  (cl  Lft.). 
r^or,  iL  ao. 
riitdv,  iii.  4;  xii.  ai. 
woiio9taia,  ix.  4. 
riS^ot,  metaphorical  nae  of,  iii.  37 ;  TiL 

ai,  33;  Tiii.  2  ;  x.  31. 
r6iio$  {tine  artu.),  ii.  la,  13,  I4,  35  ; 
iii.  31   (ct  Lft.);  ir.  13;   t.  13; 
TiL  I ;  ix.  31 ;  z.  4. 
p6ftot,  6,  ii.  13, 14 ;  iiL  19 ;  vil.  a, 
I  a. 
rovs,  i.  a8 ;  TiL  33 ;  ziL  a. 
pwl,  iiL  a  I. 

6iiry6s,  ii.  19. 
otSanfv,  ii.  a  ;  Tiii.  a  a,  A 
olKoSoftfi,  xiT.  19. 
obcTtipfir,  ix.  15. 
oiKTipfids,  ziL  I. 
otot,  ix.  6. 
hKvrjp6t,  ziL  II. 
JXoi,  viii.  36. 
6iio6vfjia56y,  XT.  6. 
inolw/ia,  Ti.  5  ;  TiiL  ^ 
^/loXoYtrv,  ix.  9. 
dvtiSta/tSs,  XT.  3. 
Syofia,  i.  5  ;  p.  ilL 
bvofiA^tiv,  XT.  ao. 
8irXov,  Ti.  13. 
{voir  &,y,  iiL  4. 

i^,  1)  ApT^,  L  itj  I.  g,t;  Ifi.  St 
xiL  19 ;  xiii.  4. 


448 


INDEX  TO  THE  NOTES 


&  yt,  viii.  3«. 

iiTTtt,  i.  25,  33  ;  iL  15  ;  tU  t ;  is.  4. 

Sri,  viii.  ai,  37,  29  ;  iz.  a. 

•i  /a;,  iv.  8. 

ov  fi6voy  ii,  viii.  aj;  ix.  lO. 

oi  wivTojf,  iii.  9. 
thf,  ii.  31  ;  iii  a8  (t.  L)  ;  x.  14 ;  zii. 

I ;  p.  394- 

6<ptl\fiv,  xiii.  8  ;  rr.  i. 
iifiin'ioy,  ▼!.  33 :   c£  Lit  and  Dei»- 
Buuin,  p.  145  L 

wAffrjfM,  tU.  5. 
raiStvr^t,  ii.  ao. 
vaXcu^  dvOpcawot,  H>  C 
wiyrott,  iii.  9. 
•B/xi,  L  85. 

««!/>'  ^irroTt,  xiL  i€. 
•a/xi/SatTiT,  iy.  15. 
«apaSi8(Srai,  L  34 ;  It.  35 ;  tL  17. 
tapa(i]Xovy,  z.  19  ;  zL  II. 
wapaKftaOtu,  rii.  18,  31. 
wapatco^,  T.  19, 
wapiwrojfui,  ▼.  15  ;  sL  II  (c£  Lft.  on 

▼.  3o). 
wmpAKkijffit,  ZT.  f. 
wapfiaipxtodcu,  ▼.  JO. 
tiptcts,  m.  as. 

Mi/H(rr(i>^  vapi^TirttPf  vL  1} ;  ziL  I. 
wapovff/a,  pp.  379  f. 
vcb,  iz.  5 ;  z.  16 ;  zL  36,  3s. 
wari^p,  i,  L  7 ;  ▼!.  4 ;  viiL  15 ;  cf.  zr.  C 
nr^p  (-ipatri«rch),  iz.  5, 10;  zL  aS ; 

ZT.  8. 
wiwotBa,  ii.  if. 
*cp2  ifiafyrlas,  riil.  |, 
vc/KiraTcry,  zilL  l^ 
9*ptffa(ia,  ▼.  17. 
v(/>c(rff($t,  liL  I. 
mtpiToitfi,  iL  39 ;  a«,  1. 
wi7X<5j,  ir.  a  I. 
wutpla,  iii.  14^ 
vi^n;t,  xi.  17. 
wlnrtiv,  xi.  II,  tt ;  xir.  4. 
wtaT«vu¥f  wi0Tvit<rOai,  m.  1 ;  a.  le ; 

ziv.  a. 
■iffru,  iiL  at ;  pp.  31  ff. 

•f«rit,4,  L  8,  17;  iii.  J.  35;  iv. 
ao;  ▼.  a;  s.  8,  17;  xii.  6; 
xiv.  I. 

•ivru  li/ffov  X^ffroS,  ilL  aa. 

•b  v/tmr,  I.  17. 

Ic  miartm,  L  17 ;  iii  36,  30  (cf. 
Lft);  ix.30,33;  Z.6;  ziT.  33. 
wKieiKx.  ix.  30. 
•Uardf  <ir,  t.  SO. 


wKto¥((ia,  i.  39. 
vKijpovy,  XT.  19. 
wXT}po<poptiv,   irKTip<xpop«ff9ai,  hr.   jl ; 

xiv.  5  ;  XT.  13  (v.  L). 
wX'/ipwfta,  xL  13,  35  ;  xr.  39. 
wKovrtiy,  x.  13. 
wKovTos,  ix.  33 ;  xi.  la. 
wvtvfM.,  viii.  9,  10,  II ;  zii.  II ;  zr.  3a 
nyfvfxa  'Ayiov,  r.  5  ;  ix.  I ;  itw. 

17  J    XT.   13,   16,  19. 

wrtv/ta  Ofov,  viii.  9,  14. 

rrtvua  Xpiffrov,  viii.  9. 

wv*vfia  ayio)avvr)t,  i.  4. 

wvtiifta  SovXf/ot,  viii  15- 

wvtvfta  Korayv^ion,  xi  8. 

vrtvua  vloStalca,  Tiii  I5. 

Ir  vrcv/iart,  Ir  r^  vrcv/iort,  L  9 ; 
ii.  39 ;  Tiii.  9 ;  ix.  i. 

Marat  wytSpui,  i  4;  viii  4,  5. 
wyntMTtK6t,  L  ii;  v.   14;  m.  141 

XT.  37. 
vMi&,  i.  3a. 
«oAAo(,  ol,  T.  15. 

9oXXi,  tA,  ZT.  ft. 
woyrjpia,  i.  39. 
wopyda,  i.  39  (t.  L). 
wpoyiyiiaKiiy,  Tiii  tf ;  sL  •. 
wpoypitptiy,  xT.  4. 
«poSi8((r(u,  xi.  35. 
wpoftprjitivtu,  ix.  39. 
*poeva77^XA<ff0cu,  1.  t. 
iipo(roi>td^(tr,  iz.  a). 
vpoixtoOai,  iii.  9. 
rpoi^cTadai,  xii  lO. 
«p<$df<nt,  Tiii.  a8 ;  Ul  II }  pw  tfi^ 
vp60vfiot,  i.  ig. 
wpotarauj^cu,  xii.  8. 
v^K^vTcir,  xiii  It. 
vporMfo'^ai,  xii.  17. 
vpoopi(tiy,  Tiii  39. 
vpowdrei^,  iT.  I. 
vpoirifimw,  ZT.  t4. 
»/><(f,  iii.  36 ;  Tiii  it. 
vpoffayety^,  r.  a. 
wpocKoprtpfly,  ziL  It. 
wp6<rimfifta,  iz.  3a ;  adv.  ij  ('».LX 
vfoahafiS&vta^ai,  ziT.  I. 
wp6aXijif/it,  xi  15. 
trpoo-TdTif,  ZTi  t. 
tpoatpopa,  ZT.  16. 
wpocomoXijipia,  ii  II. 
wporleeaeai,  iii.  35  (othcrwlat  Lft,  arf 

Ut.,  cf.  p.  3»8). 
wpo<pr)T(ia,  xii.  6. 
vpoiptfTiKoi,  xri.  a6. 
wpwToy,  i.  16  (t.  L). 
mpmrna,  z.  19. 


in.    GREEK   WORDS 


449 


tft0r6rem«t,  tUI.  ti^ 
mralttv,  zi.  Ii. 
WTo>x<5i>  XV.  26. 
woipow,  xi.  7> 
wAptMit,  zi.  15. 

^/lo,  ».  8,  17. 
fl(a,  xL  16  ff.;  XT.  It. 
ivifitvot,  6,  zi.  a6. 
W»?,  i.  7. 

0apMiii6t,  XV.  3J. 
gipmwos,  vii.  14. 

9ip(,  iii.  so;  Ti.  19  ;  is.  8 ;  xiiL  14 ; 
p.  181. 

ir  oofMi,  If  rp  tfa/Mr(,  vii.  5 ;  viii. 

«aT(i  tf<ipaa,  L  3 ;  It.  I ;  viii.  4, 

SBrorat,  zvL  so ;  p.  145. 

ot^iCtaOai,  L  S5. 

gij/ittor.  It.  II  ;  xw.  19. 

rsdrSoXor,  zi.  9  ;  ziv.  I^ 

rcfvof,  iz.  SI,  as. 

wmkiipivtiy,  iz.  it. 

gmovfiv,  ztL  17. 

Iirorio,  ZT.  a4,  s8. 

0wipfta,  iz.  7. 

owovS^,  zii.  8,  It. 

wrtroxwf^a,  ii.  9. 

rrfyitiy,  ziv.  4. 

my^CuK,  i.  1 1 ;  zri.  S5. 

0Toixtty,  iT.   IS  (on  rou  rraix.  nt 

Lft). 
0vrr*r^,  iz.  3 ;  zvi.  7,  10,  »i. 
wvyuXtUir,  zL  3a. 
9vyK\r]poy6tu>t,  viii.  17. 
wyweowrds,  xi.  17. 
rvfiftofiTvpttv,  ii.  15;  viiL  i(;  iz.  i. 
mififiopfpos,  Tiii.  29. 
ffv/iira/xuRxAcrff^,  i.  IS. 
0Vfi«tUrx<*>'i  viii.  17. 
ffvfi^vrof,  vi.  5. 
0«ra7etfvi(ca0a(,  zt.  30 
««raix/<a^<»TO>,  zvi.  7* 
vvyayamvta&at,  xv.  3a. 
ffvoavrtXa/i^dvcatfoi,  viiL  §4. 
ffvyav&ftaOai,  zii.  16. 
ffwflSrjau,  ii.  15  ;  is.  I. 
ffwtpytii',  viiL  aS. 
ffvrtvioicfty,  i.  3a. 
ffvt^ffTccrtfai,  vi.  4. 
tnmiirriyai,  iii.  5  ;  zvi.  I. 
mmwy,  iii.  11. 
ffvrrcXcrK,  iz.  a8. 
gvyrifiytiy,  iz.  a8. 
9wr(ifitv,  zvi.  aa 


(rivrpiixiia,  iii.  16. 
«rt;i/ou5iV«ii',  viii.  aa. 
cvaravpovaSai,  vi.  6. 

ffipdyrj,  viii.  36. 

a<ppafi(fiv,  XV.  a8. 

o<ppayis,  iv.  II. 

ceu^fiv,   au^eaOai,  v.  9;  viii.    t4»    ^ 

a6 :  c£  Lft   p.  288. 
<rcD/ia,  vi.  6;  vii.  4,  a4  ;  xii.  I. 
Xa/oimxTpos,  xvi.  a  I. 
avTijpia,  i.  16;  z.i;  zi.1i. 

rairc(v<iv,  xii.  16. 

T«  7<ip,  vii.  7. 

T^Ki'OJ',  viii.  14,  17 ;  ix.  8  (cf.  Deia» 

mann,  p.  164). 
riXos  (^end),  x.  4;  (=toll),  xiii.  7. 
W  ipovfuv,  iii.  5. 

ri  ouv ;  iii.  9  ;  vi.  15 ;  zi.  7. 

rl  oZy  epovfity  ;  iv.  I ;  vi.  I ;  vii 
7  ;  viii.  31 ;  ix.  14,  30. 

dAXd  ri  \iyfi ;  z.  8 ;  zL  ^ 
Ti/tii,  xii.  10. 
Tiyis,  iii.  3  ;  zi.  17. 
t6  itar'  Ifti,  i.  15. 
ToX/iay,  V.  7. 
ToXfitjpirtpoy,  zv.  15. 
T(5iros,  xii.  19 ;  XV.  23. 
rod  with  infin.,  vi.  6 ;  viL  ^ 
rpavf^a,  xi.  9. 
T^X'?^''*»  xvi.  4. 
■niwm,  V.  I4;  vi.  ly. 

IPpiffrrfi,  i.  30. 

vioOfaia,  viii.  15. 

v2<it  (of  C  hrist ;  cf .  Deissmami,  p.  iff  £)t 

1.  4,  viii.  a9;  (of  man),  viiL  14. 
ifiirtpoi,  xi.  31. 
imoKofft,  i.  5  ;  V.  19 ;  zvi.  I9« 
xnraitovtiy,  x.  16. 
(hravS/JOT,  vii.  a. 
vir&pxuy,  iv.  19. 
&ir<p«KTV7X<i>^«>'»  viiL  flC 

{m'(p«x<"'i  ^'^  I* 

imtp^ipayoi,  i.  30. 

inrcpvt/vai',  viii.  37. 

virc^cpi(7(7(i;(i»',  v.  M. 

v*(p<ppovtty,  zii.  ). 

inr^,  iii.  9. 

ini6biicot,  iii.  19. 

itir6Xtinixa,  iz.  a  7. 

^o^cfH',  xii.  IS. 

{rwonoy^,  v.  3. 

iwordafftiy,  iworiaafttmt  vi&  W}  tt 

3  ;  xiii.  I. 
tiCTfptiaOtu,  iiL  13. 


•  f 


45® 


INDEX  TO  THE   NOTES 


6if/wfia,  viii.  3^ 

fab't00ai,  vll.  I^ 

faytpov<T0<u,  iiL  ai ;  xvL  aC 

tpavkot,  ix.  1 1. 

<f>tiS(a9aif  Tiii.  31. 

^$dvny,  ix.  31. 

<f>i\aStK<pla,  xiL  IC 

f>«A.«V,  p.  374  £ 

iplKrjfta,  xvi.  16. 

tptXo^tvia,  xiL  13. 

^t\6aTopyot,  xiL  10^ 

piXoTiUHodfu^  XT.  to. 

^po%,  xiii.  6. 

i^pdrrur,  iiL  19. 

^ofcry,  Till.  5  ;  siL  16 ;  alv.  € )  ^fv.  f. 

ff6rr)i*a,  riii.  6. 

if>p6vtfiot,  xi  95  ;  xiL  161. 

<pv\ia<Ttiv,  ii.  a6. 

ipvpafio,  ix.  SI  i  xL  i6w 

^u,  ii  14. 

lty4,«hr.i7;«T.ij. 
K^t,  L  I ;  ▼.  t,  15 ;  zL  I,  < ;  aU.  t; 
sv.  IS :  avL  to;  p.  18. 


xipifffM.,   Lii;TLs3{iiL(;p 

358  ff. 
X/>«(<i|  xiL  13. 
Xfnjftariitty,  vii.  3. 
XpttfuiTianot,  ri.  4. 
Xp»7ffToXo7(a,  xvi.  18. 
Xpti<Trirr)s,  iL  4 ;  iiL  la  ;  xi.  ta. 
Xpiarit  'Irjffovt,  viiL  34  (t.  L),  39  ;  pfi 

|t,  T6of. 

ir  Tifnar^  lijffov,  iiL  14;  «L  II. 
^  X^<rT^,  ix.  I ;  svi.  y. 

^8o;mu,  ix.  L 
ffvdo*,  L  35. 
^cvff/io,  iiL  7. 
fmvTfit,  iii  4. 


tfr.j,  lx.|:  p.>  if. 
At,  ix.  3a. 

dU  if,  XT.  >« . 

A««rr«f,  Tiii.  a6. 
&#T(  (withindlc.  ,tIL4;  («dWl 
TiL6. 


A 


\J 


si^ 


vJ( 


i 


DATE  DUE 


*:"v->- 


